United States District Court, D. Alaska
SCREENING ORDER
Ralph
R. Beistline Senior United States District Judge.
In
April 2019, Eric Darnell Nelson, a self-represented prisoner,
filed a Civil Rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
and an Application to Waive the Filing Fee.[1] In the complaint,
Mr. Nelson alleged violations of the Prison Rape Elimination
Act by a corrections officer, and that the subsequent
internal investigation also violated the Prison Rape
Elimination Act.[2] The Court screened the complaint and
dismissed with leave to amend for failure to state a
claim.[3]
On
September 17, 2019, Mr. Nelson filed a First Amended
Complaint alleging a civil rights violation under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983.[4] He alleges violations of his Eighth
Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution by Defendant
Amber Doty, a corrections officer at Fairbanks Correctional
Center, and Defendant Tammi Axelsson, the Superintendent at
Fairbanks Correctional Center.[5] He sues each defendant in their
individual capacity. The alleged facts against each defendant
will be discussed below. For relief, Mr. Nelson requests (1)
damages in excess of $50, 000.00 per individual defendant;
(2) punitive damages to be determined; (3) an order requiring
defendants “to show accountability”; (4) a
declaration that “compliance and standard will be
adhered to, to ensure it will not happen again”; and
(5) for the defendants to “bear the costs of Mental
therapy for myself, and any other
person.”[6] Mr. Nelson demands a jury trial.
SCREENING
REQUIREMENT
Federal
law requires a court to conduct an initial screening of a
civil complaint filed by a self-represented prisoner seeking
a waiver of the prepayment of the filing fee. In this
screening, a court shall dismiss the case at any time if the
court determines that the action:
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;
or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.[7]
To
determine whether a complaint states a valid claim for
relief, courts consider whether the complaint contains
sufficient factual matter that, if accepted as true,
“state[s] a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.”[8] In conducting its review, a court must
liberally construe a self-represented plaintiff's
pleading and give the plaintiff the benefit of the
doubt.[9] Before a court may dismiss any portion of
a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, the court must provide the plaintiff with a
statement of the deficiencies in the complaint and an
opportunity to amend or otherwise address the problems,
unless to do so would be futile.[10]
DISCUSSION
Mr.
Nelson alleges that he has been sexually harassed and abused
by a former corrections officer in violation of his Eighth
Amendment rights. Furthermore, he alleges that after the
officer's misconduct was discovered, the superintendent
was deliberately indifferent to his “personal
well-being” in violation of his Eighth Amendment
rights. Mr. Nelson has plausibly alleged a claim against
Defendant Doty. However, Mr. Nelson has not sufficiently
alleged a claim against Defendant Axelsson. Mr. Nelson may
choose either to move forward on his claim against Defendant
Doty, or he may choose to amend his complaint.
I.
Defendant Doty
Mr.
Nelson has alleged that between May and August 2017,
Defendant Doty performed sexual acts upon him, forced him to
engage in sexual intercourse with her under threat of
punishment, and coerced him into performing sexual acts on
her under threat of reprisal and criminal
charges.[11] As alleged, Defendant Doty is or was a
corrections officer at Fairbanks Correctional Center.
“Sexual harassment or abuse of an inmate by a
corrections officer is a violation of the Eight
Amendment.”[12] Therefore, Mr. Nelson has plausibly
alleged a constitutional violation by a state actor
sufficient for this claim to move forward under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983.
II.
Defendant Axelsson
Mr.
Nelson alleges that, after Defendant Doty was fired for her
alleged misconduct, Defendant Axelsson “showed
(deliberate indifference) towards my mental [s]tate and in
fact min[i]mized the situation of one of her staff's
misconduct and my personal well-being.”[13] He further
alleges that Defendant Axelsson has not helped “in the
prosecution of his claims” and “thereby left me
at the unknown, and unfathomable mercies of any other DOC
female staff that may have other demented
idea[s.]”[14] At present, Mr. Nelson has not plausibly
alleged a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the reasons
discussed below. Accordingly, the Court must dismiss the
claim against Defendant Axelsson for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. The Court grants leave to
amend.
a.
Failure to State a Claim - Rule 8
A
complaint seeking relief from a federal court must be clear.
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure instructs that
a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the [complainant] is entitled to
relief.” A complaint should set out each claim for
relief separately. Each claim should identify (1) the
specific harm that Mr. Nelson is alleging has occurred to
him, (2) when that harm occurred, (3) where that harm was
caused, (4) who he is alleging caused that specific harm to
him, and (5) what specific law he is alleging was violated as
to that specific claim.
As
pled, it is unclear from Mr. Nelson's allegations when
and what manner Defendant Axelsson caused him an injury or
harm.
b.
42 U.S.C. § 1983
42
U.S.C. § 1983 is a federal statute that “is not
itself a source of substantive rights, ” but provides
“a method for vindicating rights [found]
elsewhere.”[15] To state a claim for relief under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must “plead that (1)
defendants acting under color of state law (2) deprived
plaintiff of rights secured by the federal Constitution or
federal statutes.”[16] To act under color of state law, a
complaint must allege that the defendants acted with state
authority as state actors.[17] To be deprived of a right, the
defendant's action needs to either violate a right
guaranteed by the Constitution or an enforceable right
created by federal law.[18] Critically, a plaintiff must
establish a causal link between the state action and the
alleged violation of her rights.[19] These essential elements
must be pleaded in a § 1983 claim.
42
U.S.C. § 1983 does not confer constitutional or federal
rights. Instead, it provides a mechanism for remedying
violations of pre-existing constitutional or federal
rights.[20] Constitutional rights are those
conferred by the U.S. Constitution to individual citizens.
Section 1983 can be used as a mechanism for enforcing the
rights guaranteed by a particular federal statute only if (1)
the statute creates enforceable rights and (2) Congress has
not foreclosed the possibility of a § 1983 remedy for
violations of the statute in question.[21] Section 1983
does not provide a cause of action for violations of state
law.[22] However, where a violation of state law
is also a violation of a federal constitutional right,
Section 1983 may provide a cause of action.[23]
Importantly
in a § 1983 action, a plaintiff must demonstrate
causation, or show how the defendant, acting under color of
state law, allegedly violated the plaintiff's federal
rights. A person deprives another of a federal constitutional
or statutory right, “within the meaning of § 1983,
‘if he does an affirmative act, participates in
another's affirmative act, or omits to perform an act
which he is legally required to do that causes the
deprivation of which complaint is
made.'”[24]The required causal connection “may
be established when an official sets in motion a
‘series of acts by others which the actor knows or
reasonably should know would cause others to inflict'
constitutional harms.”[25]
Mr.
Nelson has named Defendant Axelsson, who is Superintendent of
Fairbanks Correctional Center, a state actor who is plausibly
acting under the color of law, as having violated his Eighth
Amendment rights. However, Mr. Nelson has not plausibly
alleged a violation of either the U.S. Constitution or a
federal statute, or that Defendant Axelsson caused an injury
to his rights.
i.
Eight Amendment - Conditions of Confinement
The
Eighth Amendment imposes certain duties on prison officials:
(1) to provide humane conditions of confinement; (2) to
ensure that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter
and medical care; and (3) to “take reasonable measures
to guarantee the safety of the inmates.”[26]
In
order to state a claim under the Eight Amendment for cruel
and unusual punishment a prisoner must plausibly allege: (1)
the prisoner faced a substantial risk; (2) the defendant was
deliberately indifferent to that risk-as in-the defendant
knew of it and disregarded it by failing to take reasonable
measure to address it; and (3) the act or failure to act by
the defendant caused harm to the prisoner.[27] When
“evaluating a prisoner's claim, courts consider
whether ‘the officials acted with a sufficiently
culpable state of mind' and if the alleged wrongdoing was
objectively ‘harmful enough' to establish a
constitutional violation.”[28]
Deliberate
indifference is the conscious choice to disregard the
consequences of one's acts or omissions. An Eighth
Amendment claim based on deliberate indifference must satisfy
both an objective and a subjective component
test.[29] A prison official cannot be found liable
under the Eighth Amendment for denying an inmate humane
conditions of confinement unless the official "knows of
and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety;
the official must both be aware of facts from which the
inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious
harm exists, and he must also draw the
inference.”[30]
Mr.
Nelson's allegations do not describe a specific condition
or injury that occurred, because Defendant Axelsson knew of a
risk, purposeful disregarded that risk, and Mr. Nelson was
harmed due to Defendant Axelsson's action or inaction.
ii.
Eighth Amendment - ...