Facts

Russell S. Grant is a California state prisoner, and on June 24, 2020, Grant filed suit against numerous Department of Correction and Rehabilitation employees at different institutions. The claims in the complaint were severed based on the location of the institutions where the various defendants were employed.

After the claims were severed, Grant filed a first amended complaint that abandoned many of his initial claims, and it instead asserted claims against four employees of the California Institution for Men: Sgt. Borges, Captain L. Parker, Medical Clinician Jacobsson, and Correctional Officer John Doe 1.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Grant contended that, on October 24, 2019, when he was housed in the administration segregation unit, Doe served him a tray of food for breakfast that Grant contended had been spiked or tampered with. According to the complaint, after eating the food, Grant allegedly experienced a burning sensation throughout his body. Grant alleged that he complained to Doe, and that Doe ignored him and deprived him of sanitary food for over three days.

Grant further alleged that Borges was Doe's supervising officer, and he contended that Borges did nothing when Grant told him he had not eaten in three days. Grant also contended that he had a verbal exchange with Borges that implied the issues with his food were a retaliation for letters Grant had sent.

Grant's complaint also alleged that Parker and Jacobsson were made aware of the alleged denial of food during an October 31, 2019, classification committee meeting, but Grant contended they too did nothing to remedy the situation. Grant also alleged Jacobsson asked him if he had hallucinated Doe tampering with his food and suggested transferring him to a mental health program.

Grant contended that Doe, Borges, Jacobsson, and Parker violated his Eight Amendment rights, and he sought $30,000 in compensatory damages, $90,000 in punitive damages from each defendant, and a declaration that his rights had been violated.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: The defendants denied any wrongdoing or liability and all of Grant's material allegations.

Result

The court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, adopting the magistrate judge's findings that the complaint failed to state a claim for relief. The magistrate concluded that Grant's complaint only asserted bare bones, conclusory allegations that Doe tampered with the food, and Grant did not allege facts the ruled out an innocent explanation. Moreover, the magistrate concluded that none of the allegations against the other defendants were sufficient to state a claim for an Eight Amendment violation.