Casillas v. Westerfield
1:17-cv-01251
| D.N.M. | Mar 4, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Anthony Casillas, a pro se prisoner, sued multiple correctional officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging they assaulted him, violated prison procedures, and denied needed medical care.
- The court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, § 1915(e)(2)(B), and Rule 12(b)(6) and previously issued a memorandum opinion dismissing the claims for failure to state a claim.
- The court found Casillas made generalized allegations that failed to identify who did what, so individual defendants lacked notice and factual allegations of personal involvement.
- The complaint did not plausibly allege an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim (no allegations of malicious or sadistic conduct by Sgt. Westerfield) or an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim (no specific official alleged to have refused care).
- Casillas was given 30 days to amend to cure pleading defects but did not file an amended complaint or otherwise respond.
- Because Casillas failed to amend after leave, the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice and directed entry of judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of § 1983 pleadings / personal involvement | Casillas alleges defendants assaulted him and denied care | Allegations are generalized; no specific facts tying each defendant to wrongdoing | Complaint fails to state § 1983 claims against named defendants; dismissed |
| Eighth Amendment — excessive force by Sgt. Westerfield | Westerfield assaulted Casillas | Force was used to restore discipline, not maliciously or sadistically | No plausible allegation of malicious/sadistic conduct; excessive-force claim fails |
| Eighth Amendment — deliberate indifference to medical needs | Casillas alleges he was deprived of needed medical attention | No allegation that any specific official deliberately refused or ignored care | Allegations insufficient to state deliberate-indifference claim |
| Dismissal with prejudice after opportunity to amend | Leave to amend would cure defects | Plaintiff failed to amend within the time allowed | Court dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir.) (pleading must identify who did what to give each defendant fair notice)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard requiring factual plausibility)
- Fogarty v. Gallegos, 523 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir.) (personal involvement requirement for § 1983 liability)
- Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986) (excessive-force inquiry: good-faith discipline vs. malicious/sadistic conduct)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992) (Eighth Amendment excessive-force standard)
- Callahan v. Poppell, 471 F.3d 1155 (10th Cir.) (deliberate indifference requires specific allegations against an official)
- Adkins v. Rodriguez, 59 F.3d 1034 (10th Cir.) (Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference objective/subjective components)
- Norton v. City of Marietta, Okla., 432 F.3d 1145 (10th Cir.) (remarks alone insufficient for Eighth Amendment claim)
- Green v. Branson, 108 F.3d 1296 (10th Cir.) (requirements for Eighth Amendment medical claims)
- Reynoldson v. Shillinger, 907 F.2d 124 (10th Cir.) (pro se pleadings should be given opportunity to amend)
- Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir.) (courts must identify pleading defects and allow amendment when appropriate)