Owens v. Fogarty
- Charles Breyer
- 3:23-cv-03812
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Owens v. Fogarty: Judge Breyer dismissed Owens’s Section 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim and terminated two motions as moot.
Kenneth Oliver Owens and the named deputy-sheriff defendants, including Captain Fogarty.
What happened
In Owens v. Fogarty, Kenneth Oliver Owens, a pretrial detainee, alleged that he saw two deputy sheriffs touching inappropriately, that one called him a racial slur, and that Captain Fogarty did not process his grievance.
The court concluded that these allegations did not show unconstitutional punishment or conduct sufficiently extreme to violate Owens’s rights. It also held that verbal harassment does not support a civil-rights claim and that prisoners have no constitutional right to a prison grievance system.
Judge Charles R. Breyer dismissed the complaint during required prisoner screening for failure to state a claim. The court also terminated Owens’s motions to move forward with the case and to relieve a deputy sheriff as moot.
The detailed version
- Owens v. Fogarty · No. 3:23-cv-03812
- Charles Breyer
- Oct. 30, 2023
Background
Kenneth Oliver Owens, proceeding without a lawyer, was a pretrial detainee at the San Mateo County Jail. He filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows a person to seek relief for violations of federal rights by someone acting under state law.
Owens alleged that, on July 7, 2023, he saw deputy sheriffs Martinez and Cardenas engaging in inappropriate touching that they did not intend him to see. He alleged that, after they realized he had seen them, they told him to move down and Martinez called him a racial slur. Owens also alleged that he submitted a grievance and that Deputy Sheriff Captain Fogarty did not investigate or process it.
Court’s Analysis
The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires courts to review prisoner complaints against governmental entities or employees and dismiss those that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek relief from an immune defendant.
The court held that Owens’s allegation that he saw the deputies touch each other did not amount to punishment or otherwise violate his constitutional rights. The court also concluded that the alleged conduct was not sufficiently extreme or outrageous to violate the Constitution.
The court further held that Martinez’s alleged racial insult did not state a Section 1983 claim because verbal harassment, even when racially motivated, does not by itself establish a constitutional violation. The court ruled that Fogarty’s failure to investigate or process Owens’s grievance also did not state a claim because prisoners have no constitutional right to a prison grievance or appeal system. The court noted that a separate action for unlawful retaliation could be brought based on later adverse conduct if the required facts could be shown, but it did not decide such a claim in this case.
Disposition
The complaint was dismissed under Section 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The clerk was instructed to close the file and terminate as moot Owens’s remaining motions: a motion to move forward with the case and a motion to relieve a deputy sheriff. Judge Charles R. Breyer signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.