Witczak v. Lozano

Background

Daniel Robert Witczak, an inmate at Valley State Prison, filed this self-represented civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court reviewed his second amended complaint under the federal prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Witczak named prison officials from Valley State Prison and California Medical Facility, along with unidentified defendants. He alleged violations of the First Amendment, including retaliation, and the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. His allegations included attempted assaults, harsh and unsafe conditions, adulterated or poisoned food, being drugged, deprivation of food and sleep, inadequate protection from other inmates, and interference with litigation.

Prior Proceedings

The court had previously dismissed the initial complaint because its allegations were speculative and conclusory, did not identify which defendant committed which alleged violation, and improperly joined unrelated claims involving different prisons and defendants.

The court dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend as to certain wardens, officers, and First Amendment retaliation claims. It dismissed other claims and defendants with prejudice, including claims based only on grievance review, certain excessive-force and failure-to-protect theories pleaded under due process, the claim that Witczak was denied an effective grievance process, and Eighth Amendment claims that were vague, conclusory, or insufficiently serious.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the second amended complaint continued to fail Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief. The complaint did not specify which official allegedly adulterated food, who conducted an allegedly illegal cell search, which defendant failed to act, or how particular defendants committed the alleged assaults, poisoning, harassment, or other misconduct. Instead, it referred generally to approximately 140 pages of grievance exhibits. The court stated that it would not search those exhibits to determine what each defendant may have done.

The court also rejected Witczak’s contention that partial grants of his prison grievances, investigations, and signatures on California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Form 1858 showed that officials considered his allegations credible. According to the court, the grievance inquiries ultimately found no staff misconduct. The court explained that Form 1858 records the inmate’s right to complain about a peace officer and the receiving official’s receipt of the complaint; a signature does not mean the official agrees with or believes the allegations.

The court again found no cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim. Even assuming that Witczak’s grievances were protected conduct, he did not explain how the alleged food poisoning or assault was caused by those grievances. The court noted that, according to the second amended complaint, the alleged food poisoning occurred before and prompted the grievances.

The court also stated that Witczak again failed to provide facts sufficient for an Eighth Amendment claim. The provided opinion text begins that discussion but does not include all of its supporting analysis before stating that the second amended complaint had the same deficiencies as the earlier complaints.

Disposition

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. dismissed the action with prejudice. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment for the defendants and against Witczak, deny all pending motions as moot, and close the case.