Lewis v. French

Background

Daronta T. Lewis, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on events at Salinas Valley State Prison. He sought money damages and an order requiring changes in prison practices. The court considered Lewis’s motions to amend his complaint, screen the amended complaint, obtain a preliminary injunction, pursue early settlement proceedings, add state-law claims, and obtain appointed counsel.

Lewis alleged that on March 13, 2023, A. French and Escobedo transported him in a wheelchair-accessible van without securing his wheelchair or providing a seatbelt. He alleged that French drove recklessly, the van crashed, and he was thrown forward and injured. Lewis also described an April 9, 2023 ride during which he alleged that French again refused to use safety equipment, exceeded speed limits, and made statements referring to Lewis’s earlier grievance. Lewis alleged that Ventura and Vitela failed to intervene. He further alleged disability discrimination, an equal-protection violation, supervisory liability, claims against two unidentified transportation officers, and negligence by Warden Trent Allen and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).

Pending Motions

The court granted Lewis’s motions for leave to file an amended complaint and for screening of that complaint. Because the defendants had not yet been served, Lewis could amend once without needing the court’s permission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a).

The court denied Lewis’s request for appointment of counsel without prejudice because the case was at an early stage and the court could not yet assess whether exceptional circumstances justified seeking volunteer counsel. The court denied the preliminary-injunction and emergency-injunction requests because the defendants had not been served and Lewis had not met the requirements for an emergency order without notice. The court denied the request for early settlement proceedings as premature.

The court granted Lewis’s motion to add his state-law tort claims, but construed that request as including only the negligence claim related to the van incidents. The court dismissed any other state-law tort claims with leave to amend because Lewis had not stated a claim for relief.

Screening Standards

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court screened the prisoner’s complaint and had to identify claims that could proceed and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or sought money from an immune defendant. For a claim under § 1983, Lewis had to allege both a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and conduct by a person acting under state law.

Claims Allowed to Proceed

The court found that Lewis stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim against French, Escobedo, Ventura, and Vitela. The court treated the alleged failure to secure Lewis during the van rides and the alleged reckless driving as sufficient at the screening stage to state a claim that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm.

The court also found that Lewis stated a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim against French. Lewis alleged that he filed a grievance after the March 13 incident and that French later denied him safety equipment in retaliation. The court dismissed the retaliation claim against Ventura and Vitela with leave to amend because Lewis’s allegations about their motivation for failing to intervene were speculative.

The court found that Lewis stated a supplemental state-law negligence claim involving Allen and the CDCR. Supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear related state-law claims arising from the same overall dispute. The court concluded that the alleged negligence claim was sufficiently related to the federal claims to be heard in the same case.

Claims Dismissed

The court dismissed with prejudice Lewis’s claims against the named defendants in their official capacities for monetary damages. The court explained that such claims are treated as claims against the state or state agency, and the state had not waived its immunity from those damages claims.

The court dismissed Lewis’s disability-discrimination claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act with leave to amend. The court assumed for screening purposes that Lewis alleged a qualifying disability, but found that his allegations were conclusory and did not adequately allege discriminatory conduct or different treatment from similarly situated nondisabled inmates. The court also noted that punitive damages are not available under Title II of the ADA.

The court dismissed the equal-protection claim with leave to amend. Lewis did not identify a specific defendant connected to that claim and did not allege facts showing that a state actor intentionally treated him differently from similarly situated people without a rational basis.

The court dismissed the supervisory-liability claims with leave to amend. Lewis had not alleged that the supervisory defendants personally participated in, directed, knew about, or failed to prevent the alleged violations, and § 1983 does not impose liability solely because a supervisor oversees another person.

The court dismissed the claims against John Does 1 and 2 with leave to amend. Lewis was required to identify them by the deadline for a served defendant’s dispositive motion and connect them to claims that could proceed. If he failed to do so, the court stated that the Doe defendants would be dismissed without prejudice to Lewis filing new actions after learning their names.

Further Proceedings and Disposition

The court gave Lewis twenty-eight days from the date of the order to file a second amended complaint. If he did so, it had to include all claims he wanted to pursue, including the claims the court had found cognizable. If he did not, the amended complaint would remain the operative complaint and the claims dismissed with leave to amend would be dismissed as described in the order.

The court ordered service on the CDCR, Allen, French, Escobedo, Vitela, and Ventura. It also set deadlines for answers and later dispositive motions, including motions for summary judgment or dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The order allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and terminated the listed motions.