Blake v. New Mexico Department of Corrections
2:19-cv-00618
D.N.M.Apr 13, 2020Background
- Blake was incarcerated at Lea County Correctional Facility (LCCF), placed in protective custody, then returned to general population; he alleges this put him at risk.
- On October 4, 2017, Blake was assaulted in his cell at LCCF, suffering a severe concussion and other injuries; officers placed him in segregation and did not provide medical care.
- Blake was later transferred to Southern New Mexico Correctional Facility (SNMCF), again housed in general population despite threats; on September 4, 2018 he was assaulted a second time in view of staff.
- After the SNMCF assault Blake was again placed in segregation without medical care; he eventually was moved to a protective unit but lost good-time credits because the incidents were classified as fights.
- Blake sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect and deliberate indifference to medical needs, naming NMDOC, wardens (John/Jane Doe), GEO Group, SNMCF, GCCF, and LCCF.
- The court screened the pro se complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and dismissed without prejudice for failure to name proper defendants or allege a policy/supervisory basis for liability, but granted leave to amend within 75 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capacity to be sued under §1983 | Blake sues NMDOC and facilities as defendants | State agencies/facilities are not "persons" under §1983 | Facilities/NMDOC are not proper §1983 defendants; claims dismissed as to them |
| Supervisor/entity liability | Blake alleges wardens/GEO responsible for harms | No allegation of a policy or that supervisors caused violations | Plaintiff must plead an official policy or supervisory action to hold supervisors/entities liable; currently insufficient |
| Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference/failure to protect | Guards allowed assaults and denied medical care | Defendants argue complaint fails to identify who did what | Facts would ordinarily state claims, but plaintiff failed to identify individual actors; dismissal without prejudice and leave to amend |
| Amendment and notice requirements | Seek damages and relief now | Court requires specific identification of individuals and acts for fair notice | Complaint dismissed without prejudice; Blake given 75 days to amend identifying responsible individuals and policies |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (standards for plausible pleadings)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (pro se pleadings construed liberally)
- McLaughlin v. Bd. of Trustees, 215 F.3d 1168 (§1983 requires a "person" acting under color of state law)
- Buchanan v. Oklahoma, [citation="398 F. App'x 339"] (state-operated detention facilities not persons under §1983)
- Blackburn v. Dep't of Corr., 172 F.3d 62 (state DOC is not a §1983 "person")
- Moya v. Garcia, 895 F.3d 1229 (supervisory liability requires policy or causal link)
- Dubbs v. Head Start, Inc., 336 F.3d 1194 (entity liability requires an official policy causing the violation)
- Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242 (requirement to plead who did what for fair notice)
- Fogarty v. Gallegos, 523 F.3d 1147 (identify individuals personally involved to state a claim)