Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Johnnie Jabaar Wells, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint on October 31, 2025, naming four officials at California Correctional Institution: the warden and an A-Yard captain, lieutenant, and sergeant. He alleged that a CDCR policy bans tobacco, yet correctional officers bring chewing tobacco into the prison and spit it out, and inmates dry and smoke it, creating a hazardous environment of secondhand smoke. He alleged shortness of breath affecting his asthma and blood pressure, along with distress from relapsing into smoking, and sought $150,000,000 for the defendants' alleged negligence. Those are Wells's allegations; the court made no finding that they are true.
On October 1, 2026, the magistrate judge issued a First Screening Order under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A finding that the complaint stated no cognizable claim. The court treated the complaint as raising a single Eighth Amendment claim based on exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, explained that the Fifth Amendment's due process clause does not apply to state officials, and noted that violating prison policy or state regulations does not by itself support a § 1983 claim. It found that Wells alleged only that the four supervisors collectively "failed their roles to enforce the policies," pleaded no facts on when, where, or how often he was exposed, and described negligence rather than deliberate indifference. The order also told Wells that exhibits cannot substitute for factual allegations in the complaint itself. He was given 21 days to file an amended complaint, notify the court that he would stand on the complaint, or voluntarily dismiss.
The Court’s Holding
The findings and recommendations (Doc. 11) state that more than 21 days, plus mailing time, passed after service of the screening order without any filing by Wells. Applying Rule 41(b) and the Ninth Circuit's five-factor test, the magistrate judge found that the public's interest in prompt resolution and the court's need to manage its docket favored dismissal. Unreasonable delay raises a presumption of prejudice to defendants. The policy favoring merits decisions carried little weight because Wells was not moving the case forward and had no cognizable claim. Less drastic sanctions were not warranted because earlier orders had warned that noncompliance could lead to dismissal.
The magistrate judge recommended dismissal without prejudice for failure to state a claim, failure to obey court orders, and failure to prosecute. This is a recommendation, not a final judgment: the only operative directive is that the Clerk randomly assign a district judge. Any party may file objections within 14 days, limited to fifteen pages, and failure to object may waive certain appellate rights. The district judge has not yet adopted or rejected the recommendation, and the document does not resolve whether any new action could later be brought.
Key Takeaways
- A prisoner pleading under § 1983 must allege facts showing what each named defendant personally did or failed to do; lumping supervisors together is insufficient.
- An environmental tobacco smoke claim requires facts showing the plaintiff's own exposure to unreasonably high smoke levels, including time, place, frequency, and proximity, and a defendant's knowing disregard of the risk.
- Violating a prison tobacco ban or a Title 15 regulation does not alone state a federal claim, though the existence of a smoking policy bears heavily on deliberate indifference.
- Negligence, or imperfect enforcement of a tobacco ban, does not establish deliberate indifference by a particular official.
- Ignoring a screening order after an explicit warning can lead to a recommendation of dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute, though the recommendation is not final until the district judge acts.
Why It Matters
This is an unpublished magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, so it carries no precedential weight and binds no court. Its value lies in showing how Eastern District of California screening orders apply the Eighth Amendment ETS standard and supervisory-liability rules to a pro se prisoner complaint.
The document also shows the two-step structure of such cases: a screening order identifying defects with leave to amend, followed by a recommendation of dismissal without prejudice if the plaintiff does not respond. Because the district judge must still rule, nothing here is final, and the merits of the underlying smoke-exposure allegations were never adjudicated.