Avalos v. Baltzell, 2:19-cv-01066

Plaintiff Carlos Avalos, a pro se inmate, alleged that between September–December 2018 DOC staff allowed him to self-harm and punished him instead of protecting him, despite an active Individual Behavior Management Plan (IBMP).
Key incidents occurred Sept. 5–7, 2018 (reports of suicidal ideation, construction/use of a noose, 15‑minute checks, and later passing a noose through a cuff port), Sept. 20 (superficial wrist wound and suicidal statements), and Oct. 4, 2018 (claimed emergency deemed non‑emergent).
DOC and individual staff responded with IBMP‑directed procedures: camera/one‑on‑one posts, 15‑minute checks, medical triage, mental‑health consultations, and meetings to develop Security Enhancement Plans; no serious self‑injury resulted.
The record documents Avalos’ extensive history of assaults on staff and prior IBMPs anticipating manipulative emergency claims.
Defendants moved for summary judgment; Avalos filed no opposition. The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment and dismissing all claims (including §1983 Eighth Amendment, ADA, and claims against supervisory staff and DOC).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to suicide/self‑harm risk	Avalos: staff knew of suicidal ideation/self‑harm and failed to protect or treat him adequately	Defendants: followed IBMP and medical/mental‑health protocols; responded reasonably; no serious harm resulted	Dismissed — no competent evidence of deliberate indifference to an acute risk; staff acted reasonably
Supervisory liability via grievance handling (Haynes, Dahne) and unnamed/limited‑role staff (Stroup, Porter)	Avalos: supervisors performed "shady" investigations and signed grievance responses contributing to deprivation	Defendants: limited, clerical or supervisory grievance review; no personal involvement in causing harm	Dismissed — mere grievance denial/review insufficient for §1983 personal liability
Liability of DOC as defendant under §1983	Avalos sued DOC under §1983 and ADA	Defendants: DOC is a state agency and not a “person” under §1983; ADA claims addressed separately	DOC dismissed for §1983 purposes — a state agency is not a person under §1983
ADA (Title II) failure to accommodate/deny benefits	Avalos: DOC denied adequate mental‑health treatment because of disability	Defendants: plaintiff alleges inadequate treatment but not discrimination or exclusion from services by reason of disability	Dismissed — plaintiff pleaded inadequate treatment, not ADA discrimination resulting in denial of services

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden allocation)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment and reasonable juror standard)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard)
Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (state agencies not "persons" under § 1983)
Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir.) (suicide/self‑harm risk — need for showing acute risk)
Lemire v. California Dep't of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 726 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir.) (self‑harm/suicide injury as objective Eighth Amendment harm)
Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir.) (deliberate indifference is a high standard)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (credible record may refute non‑moving party’s version)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (summary judgment and the need for persuasive evidence)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity framework)