Toelle v. Jusino

Background

Loren Michelle Toelle, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the United States Environmental Protection Agency, FCI-Dublin Warden T. Jusino, and unidentified Federal Bureau of Prisons employees. The court reviewed the complaint under the prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Toelle alleged that, beginning in 2019, inmates at FCI-Dublin were required to dry-buff floor tiles containing friable asbestos and faced discipline if they failed inspections. She also alleged that the facility had toxic mold and that its air and water were contaminated by mold, asbestos, and bird feces. According to the complaint, these conditions caused her hair loss, memory loss, hearing loss, fatigue, headaches, stomachaches, muscle pain, and other medical problems. She alleged that she notified the Environmental Protection Agency, Warden Jusino, and unidentified Bureau of Prisons employees, but they did not protect her or correct the conditions.

Toelle asserted two causes of action. The first alleged that the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Toxic Substances Control Act required the Environmental Protection Agency to inspect and regulate FCI-Dublin, and that the agency failed to perform those duties. The second alleged that Warden Jusino and the unidentified employees violated the Eighth Amendment and 18 U.S.C. § 4042 by failing to maintain suitable housing, provide medical treatment, remove her from dangerous substances, and remediate the contamination.

Screening Rulings

The court dismissed the first cause of action with leave to amend. It held that Toelle had not identified a provision of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, or Toxic Substances Control Act requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to inspect or regulate FCI-Dublin after receiving her complaint. The court also dismissed the claims against the unidentified employees with leave to amend because an anonymous defendant cannot be served. It explained that discovery may allow Toelle to identify those defendants and seek permission to amend.

The court found that Toelle’s allegations about the failure to remediate mold, asbestos, and bird-feces contamination stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Warden Jusino for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs and safety. A cognizable claim is one that is sufficiently stated to proceed past the initial screening stage; the ruling did not determine that Jusino was ultimately liable.

The court rejected Toelle’s claim under 18 U.S.C. § 4042, explaining that the statute does not create a private right of action against federal officials in a civil-rights case.

Other Motions and Filings

The court denied Toelle’s request for an ex parte emergency preliminary injunction. It gave two reasons: she had not provided the notice or explained why notice should not be required, and the requested inspection order concerned a claim that had been dismissed rather than the Eighth Amendment claim that remained cognizable.

The court denied requests by N.T. Nocomie, Maura Martinez, and Theresa Tolliver to intervene, and denied their requests to join the case. The denials were without prejudice to those individuals bringing their own lawsuits. The court concluded that adding them would delay and complicate the case, and that their similar allegations did not require them to be parties.

The court stated that declarations and other evidence Toelle had prematurely filed had no legal effect and would not be considered at that stage. As a one-time courtesy, it granted her request for copies of documents filed at ECF Nos. 1 through 14.

Disposition and Next Steps

The court dismissed the remainder of the complaint and the remaining defendants with leave to amend. It ordered the clerk to issue a summons and the United States Marshal to serve Warden Jusino. Toelle was given 28 days from the order’s date to file an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies. The court warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the action without further notice. The order also set deadlines for a potential dispositive motion, the opposition, and the reply, and authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.