Andrew Coley v. P. Brazelton
695 F. App'x 257
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Andrew Calvin Coley, a California state prisoner, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations by prison staff.
- Claims included deliberate indifference to safety/medical needs, an allegation that Officer Martinez pulled a gun on him, First Amendment retaliation, and equal protection violations based on race.
- Defendants named include Martinez, De La Cruz, and Tucker.
- The district court dismissed Coley’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; Coley appealed pro se.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and affirmed, finding Coley failed to plead facts sufficient to state viable claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deliberate indifference | Coley alleged defendants ignored risk of serious harm to him | Defendants lacked the requisite knowledge or disregard of an excessive risk | Dismissed — pleadings did not show deliberate indifference (Farmer standard) |
| Alleged gun threat by Martinez | Martinez pulled a gun on Coley | Allegation is conclusory/vague and unsupported | Dismissed as overly vague and insufficiently pleaded (Ivey) |
| First Amendment retaliation | Martinez retaliated for Coley’s protected conduct | No factual causal link between protected conduct and adverse action | Dismissed — no sufficient causal connection alleged (Watison principles) |
| Equal protection (race) | Defendants discriminated against Coley due to race | No facts showing intent/purpose to discriminate based on protected class | Dismissed — plaintiff failed to plausibly allege discriminatory intent (Hartmann standard) |
Key Cases Cited
- Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443 (9th Cir. 2000) (standard of review for § 1915A dismissals)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (deliberate indifference requires knowledge and disregard of excessive risk)
- Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266 (9th Cir. 1982) (vague or conclusory allegations insufficient to survive dismissal)
- Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2012) (elements and causation standard for prison First Amendment retaliation claims)
- Hartmann v. California Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2013) (equal protection requires plausible allegations of discriminatory intent)
- Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 1999) (issues not adequately raised below are not preserved on appeal)
- United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870 (9th Cir. 1990) (documents not presented to the district court are not part of the appellate record)