Cook v. Quattrocchi

Background

Kevin Cook, who was incarcerated at the Orange County Jail, proceeded without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. He sued C. Quattrocchi, Suterland, and Sheriff Carl Dubois under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The court had previously ordered Cook to amend his original complaint because it did not adequately state a claim. Cook filed an amended complaint, which the court reviewed.

Cook alleged that Suterland retaliated against him for filing a sexual-harassment complaint by talking about him to other prisoners and trying to cause him harm. He also alleged that Quattrocchi told another prisoner that Cook had called her a derogatory name and had written him up for allegedly cursing at her. Cook denied the conduct and said he received seven days of confinement and a $25 fine. In the amended complaint, he added allegations that correction officers called him “Cookie,” sexually harassed and threatened him, and made comments that caused him to feel unsafe.

Screening standard

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires federal courts to screen complaints filed by incarcerated people seeking relief from government entities or their officers or employees. The court must dismiss a complaint, or part of it, if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, seeks money from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts must read self-represented complaints liberally, the complaint still must provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Cook’s retaliation claim failed for the reasons stated in its February 5, 2020 order. That earlier order had concluded that the original allegations did not state a First Amendment retaliation claim and that the allegations against the correction officers were too vague to support another claim under § 1983. The amended complaint, the court found, repeated those allegations without providing enough additional facts.

The court separately held that the allegations of sexual harassment and threats failed to state a claim under § 1983. It explained that verbal abuse, threats, and harassment without physical contact generally are not enough to establish a constitutional violation. Because Cook did not allege that any correction officer actually touched him, the court dismissed that claim as well.

Disposition

The court dismissed Cook’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Cook permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. The court also noted that, if later instances of sexual harassment occurred, Cook could seek permission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 to add new parties or facts in a prior related proceeding.