Pc Mendiola V Covello

Key Facts

Issues

• The court determined that the plaintiff has adequately stated a valid claim for relief under the Eighth Amendment against defendants Young and Pendleton for failure to protect. The court found that defendants' alleged comments before and after placing new cellmates were sufficient to infer they knew the plaintiff was at risk of serious harm or deliberately created such risk. The allegation that Young watched and did not intervene while plaintiff was being assaulted also supported the failure to protect claim. However, the court found other claims against these defendants and all claims against Fisk and Covello were not adequately stated.
• The court determined that allegations against Fisk did not state a claim for violation of due process rights because plaintiff did not allege he lost good-time credits or show the disciplinary imposed atypical and significant hardship. Plaintiff also failed to state a due process violation on the basis of property loss because California has an adequate post-deprivation remedy. Claims against Covello failed because plaintiff made only conclusory statements based solely on Covello's position as warden without alleging personal participation or knowledge of violations.
• The court granted plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff is a former state inmate who filed this civil rights action without a lawyer and submitted a declaration showing he cannot afford to pay the entire filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2).
• The court found that plaintiff's allegations that actions by Young and Pendleton were in retaliation for his lawsuit against the warden were not supported by facts showing they were aware of the lawsuit or that their conduct was motivated by plaintiff's protected conduct. Similarly, there were no facts showing Fisk's actions were motivated by plaintiff's protected conduct. The complaint therefore failed to state a claim for retaliation.
• The court found that plaintiff had not alleged facts explaining how defendants' conduct infringed on the practice of his religion. The complaint failed to state a claim for violation of the right of freedom of religion.

Holdings

Remedies

Legal Principles

• Prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment when they subjectively have a sufficiently culpable state of mind of deliberate indifference to inmate health or safety and objectively fail to take reasonable measures to lessen substantial risk of serious harm. Negligent failure to protect an inmate from harm is not actionable under § 1983.
• Prisoners do not have a liberty interest in being free from false accusations of misconduct. Unauthorized deprivation of property does not state a claim under § 1983 if the state provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. California law provides adequate post-deprivation remedy for property deprivations.
• To state a claim for retaliation, a plaintiff must allege defendants took adverse action against plaintiff because of plaintiff's protected conduct, and that the action would chill an inmate of reasonable firmness from further protected conduct and lacked a legitimate correctional goal. There must be an affirmative link or connection between defendant's actions and the claimed deprivation.
• For § 1983 claims, plaintiff must link each named defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of plaintiff's federal rights. There is no respondeat superior liability, meaning a supervisor cannot be held responsible for subordinates' conduct unless they knew of violations and failed to act to prevent them.

Precedent Name

• Farmer v. Brennan
• Taylor v. List
• Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
• Neitzke v. Williams
• Wolff v. McDonnell

Cited Statute

• In forma pauperis statute
• Federal Rule for voluntary dismissal
• Prisoner complaint screening requirement
• Civil Rights Act
• Grounds for dismissing frivolous prisoner claims

Judge Name

Passage Text

• After conducting the screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the court finds that plaintiff has adequately stated a valid claim for relief pursuant to the Eighth Amendment against both defendants Young and Pendleton for failure to protect. Defendants' alleged comments both before and after placing his new cellmates are enough to infer they either knew plaintiff was at risk of serious harm or deliberately created such a risk. The allegation that Young watched and did not intervene while plaintiff was being assaulted also supports a claim for failure to protect.
• The complaint does not state any other claims for which relief can be granted. Plaintiff's allegations that actions taken against him by Young and Pendleton were in retaliation for his lawsuit against the warden are not supported by facts suggesting they were aware of the lawsuit or that their conduct was otherwise motivated by plaintiff's protected conduct. The allegations against Fisk also do not state a claim for violation of due process rights.
• Plaintiff has the option to proceed immediately on his failure to protect claims against defendants Young and Pendleton as set forth in Section III above, or to file an amended complaint. Within 21 days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete and return the attached Notice of Election form notifying the court whether he wants to proceed on the screened complaint or whether he wants to file an amended complaint.