(PC) Blake v. Allison, 2:23-cv-00208

Background

Pro se state prisoner Kenyata Blake filed a § 1983 suit alleging exposure to contaminated drinking and bathing water at Mule Creek State Prison (MCSP), claiming dizziness, joint pain, and fatigue.
Blake sues multiple supervisory officials (Allison, Kernan, Covello, Lizarraga, Bettencourt, Ahmed, Larrabee), alleging sewer/storm-drain failures, corroded pipes, and a failure to construct a required water-treatment plant.
Blake alleges Lizarraga authorized use of chemicals to treat contamination, which Blake claims damaged boilers and did not resolve the problem.
The complaint relies in part on findings, fines, settlements, and agency testing showing contamination in waterways surrounding MCSP, and prior worker illnesses during construction.
Procedurally, Blake’s IFP application was granted; the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and concluded it failed to state a claim. Leave to amend was granted; motions for appointment of counsel and class certification were denied; the docket was amended to remove Charles Stevenson as a plaintiff.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
IFP / filing fee	Blake is indigent and seeks IFP.	N/A (statutory process).	IFP granted; initial partial fee ordered and monthly payments required.
Personal involvement / supervisory liability	Supervisors knew of contamination by virtue of positions and failed to act.	Naming supervisors by title is insufficient; no specific acts or causal link alleged.	Dismissed as to supervisors for failure to allege personal involvement or causal connection.
Conditions of confinement (Eighth Amendment)	Drinking/bathing water is contaminated; officials were deliberately indifferent to health risks.	Allegations are speculative; odor alone and surrounding-water contamination do not establish unsafe prison water or deliberate indifference.	Dismissed for failure to plead objective harm and defendants’ deliberate indifference. Leave to amend allowed.
Equal protection	Blake alleges unequal treatment (implicitly vs. others).	Prisoners are not a protected class; no facts showing disparate treatment of similarly situated persons.	Dismissed for failure to state an equal protection claim.
Appointment of counsel	Indigent, limited legal knowledge, complex issues, limited library access; counsel requested.	No exceptional circumstances shown; complaint fails to state a claim so no likelihood of success.	Denied.
Class certification	Seeks class treatment for similarly situated inmates.	A pro se incarcerated plaintiff cannot adequately represent a class or appear on behalf of others.	Denied; action construed as individual suit.
Co‑plaintiff removal	Move to remove Charles Stevenson for failure to prosecute.	Stevenson never properly joined; complaint signed only by Blake and only Blake filed IFP application.	Clerk directed to update docket to remove Stevenson as plaintiff; motion otherwise moot.

Key Cases Cited

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (frivolous-claim standard)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must contain more than labels and conclusions)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (facial plausibility standard)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard)
Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 1998) (personal involvement requirement under § 1983)
Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266 (9th Cir. 1982) (conclusory allegations insufficient)
Twombly/Iqbal framework applied in screening: Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2012) (Rule 12(b)(6) standard in § 1915A screening)
Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296 (1989) (court cannot require counsel to represent indigent civil litigants)
Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2009) (factors for appointing counsel in § 1983 suits)
Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976) (pleading must show how conduct caused constitutional deprivation)