Richardson v. Allison

• Decision Date: 03 May 2022
• Docket Number: 1:21-cv-00070-BAK (GSA) (PC)
• Parties: ASALI M. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff, v. ALLISON, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

ASALI M. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff, v. ALLISON, et al., Defendants.

No. 1:21-cv-00070-BAK (GSA) (PC)

United States District Court, E.D. California

May 3, 2022

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

(ECF NO. 1)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

GARY S. AUSTIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Clerk of Court to assign a district judge.

PlaintiffAsali M. Richardson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that Defendants violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment by demonstrating medical indifference to Plaintiff's exposure to and contraction of COVID-19(“COVID”).(ECF No. 1.)In particular, Plaintiff claims that Defendants ignored her CDCR form 602 inmate appeals submitted in order to avoid exposure to COVID.Additionally, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants violated her rights by placing her in a “high risk” medical category.After careful consideration of Plaintiff's allegations, the Court recommends dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.

I.SCREENING REQUIREMENT

Generally, the Court is required to screen complaints brought by inmates seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity.28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious, ” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.”28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

II.PLEADING REQUIREMENTS

A.Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).The statement must give the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff's claims and the grounds supporting the claims.Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512(2002).Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678(2009)(citingBell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555(2007)).Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.'”Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678(quotingTwombly, 550 U.S. at 570).Factual allegations are accepted as true, but legal conclusions are not.Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678(citingTwombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

The Court construes pleadings of pro se prisoners liberally and affords them the benefit of any doubt.Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342(9th Cir.2010)(citation omitted).This liberal pleading standard applies to a plaintiff's factual allegations but not to his legal theories.Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9(1989).Moreover, a liberal construction of the complaint may not supply essential elements of a claim not pleaded by the plaintiff, Bruns v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257(9th Cir.1997)(internal quotation marks and citation omitted), and courts“are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.”Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681(9th Cir.2009)(Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colls., Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1064(9th Cir.2008)).The mere possibility of misconduct and facts merely consistent with liability is insufficient to state a cognizable claim.Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678;Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969(9th Cir.2009).

B.Linkage and Causation

Prisoners may bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of constitutional or other federal rights by persons acting “under color of state law.”To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must show a causal connection or link between the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiff.SeeRizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 373-75(1976).The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects' another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.”Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743(9th Cir.1978)(citation omitted).

III.PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS

At the time of the alleged violations, Plaintiff was housed at California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation(“CDCR”), Central California Women's Facility (“CCWF”).^[1]She names as defendants Allison, Secretary of CDCR (“Secretary”); Warden Pallares (“Warden”); Mitchell, Chief Medical Officer (“CMO”); Dotson, Assistant Warden Custody (“AW Custody”); De La Cruz, Assistant Warden Housing; and CCWF Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”).Plaintiff claim that she was exposed to and contracted COVID, she was improperly placed into a “high risk” medical category, and she did not receive medical treatment for her heart issues or mental health services.

According to Plaintiff, the Secretary provided nine non-CDC-approved masks in a ten-month period, and the Secretary and Warden told her to re-use N95 masks for seven days after a COVID breakout affecting over 700 inmates housed at CCWF.The Warden detained Plaintiff in her assigned cell for days without natural air.Additionally, the Warden and CMO failed to provide cleaning agents and supplies such as food-grade Saniguard surface sanitizer, liquid bleach, Pine Sol for “24 hours of a day in cell for surfaces”; and disposable gloves, hand sanitizer, and machine-washed clothes.

Plaintiff alleges that the Warden, AW Custody, and AW Housing transferred contagious inmates from McFarland Community Correctional Facility into Plaintiff's “living areas, ” and rooms were shared between infected and non-infected inmates.The CMO did not provide weekly updates on the number of infections within CCWF to Plaintiff or the general population.Plaintiff complains that the Assistant Wardens did not allow her access to the dayroom and telephone to communicate with family, friends, and support members.

On January 13, 2021, Plaintiff claims she was relocated to a “COVID-19 infested environment” without her consent, with inhumane living conditions, no power, no self-controlled lights, pest contamination, and trash in rooms left for six- to eight-hour periods.Plaintiff states that she had been in a “medium risk” category was then placed in a “high risk” medical category.Plaintiff alleges that she contracted COVID and she was concerned about infecting others.^[2]

Aside from her concerns about contracting and spreading COVID, Plaintiff alleges that CCWF deliberately ignored her existing medical conditions.In March 2020, Plaintiff was diagnosed with heart issues, for which she has not received treatment.Plaintiff also suffered from “spondylithesis, ”^[3] asthma, COPD, “arthopy, ”^[4] neuropathy, obesity, sciatica, loss of bladder control, and loss of sight in her right eye.Additionally, Plaintiff complains there were no mental health services.

Plaintiff filed this action alleging that Defendants violated her Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment, first by “directly ignoring all CDCR 602 grievances [she] submitted to avoid direct exposure” to COVID.In her second claim, Plaintiff argues that Defendants violated her “right to ‘avoid' being placed into ‘high risk' medical category, ” and they demonstrated medical indifference to her concerns about contracting COVID.Plaintiff also complains that she received no medical treatment for her heart issues or mental health services.

As relief, Plaintiff generally requests that the Court remedy CDCR/CCWF's Eighth Amendment violations.Specifically, Plaintiff seeks an audit of the CDCR 602 grievances she filed between August 2020 to January 15, 2021, and the medical CDCR.Due to Plaintiff's “substantial risk of [dying], ”she seeks protection from being re-infected with COVID.Plaintiff requests to be released from CCWF, placed into residential treatment, or allowed to live with immediate family.

IV.DISCUSSION

A. 42 U.S.C. § 1983

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . . .

42 U.S.C. § 1983.“[Section]1983‘is not itself a source of substantive rights,' but merely provides ‘a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.'”Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94(1989)(quotingBaker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3(1979));see alsoChapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600, 618(1979);Hall v. City of Los Angeles, 697 F.3d 1059, 1068(9th Cir.2012);Crowley v. Nevada, 678 F.3d 730, 734(9th Cir.2012).

Federal law allows for two types of actions seeking relief on complaints related to imprisonment: petitions for habeas corpus and complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.Muhammad v....