(PC) Lewis v. United States of America
1:20-cv-00693
E.D. Cal.Oct 16, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Darwyn Lewis, a federal inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued officials at USP Atwater alleging contaminated water caused skin discoloration and stomach symptoms.
- Named facility personnel in the filings include Hanson (Health Services Administrator), Heldman (SHU lieutenant), and Marquez (safety/chemical administrator); Plaintiff alleges staff drink their own water.
- Plaintiff’s original complaint (filed May 18, 2020) alleges medical symptoms and refusal/inaction by staff; Dr. Giron purportedly scheduled blood and urine tests.
- Court screened the complaint (July 16, 2020) and explained pleading deficiencies under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and governing Eighth Amendment standards, giving leave to amend.
- Plaintiff submitted a filing titled “First Amended Complaint” (Aug. 10, 2020) that the Court found was not a complete amended complaint and included a questionnaire; the Court gave another opportunity to file a proper amended complaint.
- Plaintiff failed to file a timely amended complaint or otherwise respond; the magistrate judge recommends dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a claim and for failure to comply with a court order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint states an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim based on allegedly contaminated water | Lewis: water at Atwater is contaminated, caused skin/stomach symptoms, staff aware and failed to act | Court (reviewing record): no factual showing of contamination, no tests or professional diagnosis linking symptoms to water, no evidence defendants subjectively knew of a substantial risk | Dismissed — complaint fails both objective (no substantial risk shown) and subjective (no deliberate indifference shown) components |
| Whether the Aug. 10 filing qualified as a proper amended complaint | Lewis: provided additional facts and requested court assistance (e.g., testing) | Court: filing was incomplete, referred to earlier complaint, did not identify defendants cleanly, and included a questionnaire; not a standalone amended complaint per Lacey/Local Rule 220 | Rejected — filing not a valid amended complaint; plaintiff must submit a complete, signed amended complaint |
| Whether dismissal for failure to comply with the court’s order is warranted | No timely response filed to the court’s instructions | Court: needs docket control; lesser sanctions unavailable or ineffective given plaintiff’s status | Dismissal with prejudice recommended after weighing Pagtalunan/Ferdik factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim; legal conclusions not accepted as true)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to be plausible)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference standard; objective and subjective components)
- Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1993) (prison conditions creating substantial risk of serious harm violate Eighth Amendment)
- Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (U.S. 1981) (analysis of conditions of confinement and substantial risk standard)
- Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639 (9th Cir. 2002) (factors for dismissal for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders)
- Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court’s authority to dismiss for failure to comply with orders)
- Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir. 2010) (pro se pleadings are held to less stringent standards)
- Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (amended complaint supersedes original; must be complete in itself)