Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ayala v. Tewalt

United States District Court, D. Idaho

December 9, 2019

JESUS GEORGE AYALA, Plaintiff,
v.
JOSH TEWALT; HENTY ATENCIO; ALBERTO RAMIREZ; KEITH YORDY; CPL. SHABER; CPL. LOMBARDI; SGT. CASE; SGT. BLANCHARD; SGT. MARTIN; SGT. BAROSO; C.O. McARTHUR; CPL. DUTTER; C.O. CAMPBELL; LT. R. WINTER; LT. EUGENE CLARK; SGT. SEELY; and JOHN DOES I-III, sued in their individual capacities, Defendants.

          SUCCESSIVE REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE

          DAVID C. NYE CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Jesus George Ayala is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. The Court previously reviewed Plaintiff's amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, determined that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and allowed Plaintiff an opportunity to amend. See Dkt. 14.

         Plaintiff has now filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). See Dkt. 17. The Court retains its screening authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Having screened the SAC, the Court enters the following order allowing Plaintiff to proceed on some of his claims.

         1. Screening Requirement

         As the Court explained in its Initial Review Order, the Court must dismiss a prisoner or in forma pauperis complaint-or any portion thereof-that states a frivolous or malicious claim, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

         2. Pleading Standard

         A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). A complaint fails to state a claim for relief under Rule 8 if the factual assertions in the complaint, taken as true, are insufficient for the reviewing court plausibly “to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “[D]etailed factual allegations” are not required, but a plaintiff must offer “more than ... unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s].” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). If the facts pleaded are “merely consistent with a defendant's liability, ” the complaint has not stated a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

         3. Factual Allegations

         Plaintiff is in the custody of the Idaho Department of Correction (“IDOC”) and is currently incarcerated at the Idaho State Correctional Center. At the times relevant to Plaintiff's claims, he was incarcerated at the Idaho State Correctional Institution (“ISCI”). Plaintiff is multi-racial and homosexual, making him particularly likely to be attacked by members of the Aryan Knights or the Severely Violent Criminals, two prisons gangs at ISCI. See SAC, Dkt. 17, at 4, 8. Plaintiff's claims in this action arise from two incidents in which he was attacked and injured by prison gang members.

         In April 2017, while he was housed in Unit 14, Plaintiff “approached Defendant Shaber and indicated [Plaintiff] needed protection” from inmates who were members of these prison gangs. Id. at 3. Defendant Shaber took no action other than to “order[] Plaintiff to return to his housing tier.” Id. On April 17, 2017, after Plaintiff had notified Shaber that he feared for his safety, Plaintiff was seriously injured in an attack by inmate Chandler Palmer. Id. at 3. Plaintiff refers to this incident as the “first attack.”

         After the first attack, Plaintiff was taken to segregation, where he stayed for a short period of time. But he was soon placed back in Unit 14.

         Plaintiff then advised Defendants Lombardi, Blanchard, McArthur, Clark, Campbell, Case, Martin, Baroso, and Dutter-as well as three unidentified correctional officers-that Plaintiff was at risk for another attack. Id. at 7-10. Plaintiff did so either by speaking directly to these Defendants or by filling out a form requesting protective custody. Id.

         Nevertheless, Plaintiff was not immediately removed from Unit 14, nor was he placed in protective custody. On April 26, 2017, Plaintiff was again attacked and seriously injured, this time by inmate McKutcheon. Id. at 5. Plaintiff refers to this incident as the “second attack.”

         Plaintiff alleges that Unit 14-where both attacks took place-is designed for 190 inmates but that, at the time of the attack, there were 254 inmates on the unit. Plaintiff also states that these inmates were supervised by five correctional officers: one per unit, as well as an additional officer who “walked through the four tiers once per hour on an irregular basis.” Id. at 12.

         Plaintiff brings claims under both federal and state law. He seeks monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief.

         4. Discussion

         A. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.