Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Keith Duane Arline, Jr., a state inmate at Centinela State Prison proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment violations due to unsanitary conditions and First Amendment retaliation for filing a grievance. Arline alleged that on August 6, 2025, he observed a rodent jump from inmates’ sack lunches and that wild birds in his housing unit deposited feces on surfaces. He filed a grievance, which Defendant Perez, the Appeals Coordinator, denied.
Arline claimed Perez disregarded evidence and retaliated against him by denying the grievance, chilling his right to seek redress. He further alleged that Facility Captain Soriano, Warden Green, and former Warden Guzman were deliberately indifferent to the health risks by failing to abate the wildlife infestation. Arline also moved to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), submitting a certified trust account statement showing an average monthly balance of $147.37 and average monthly deposits of $148.22.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Arline’s motion to proceed IFP, assessing an initial filing fee of $29.64 (20% of the greater of average monthly deposits or balance), collectible only if funds are available. The court dismissed the complaint sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim.
The Eighth Amendment claim failed because the allegations—a single rodent sighting and bird feces on surfaces—did not plausibly allege a deprivation sufficiently serious in duration or severity, nor did they show the supervisory defendants were personally aware of a substantial risk and deliberately disregarded it. The First Amendment retaliation claim failed because the mere denial of a grievance, without additional adverse action, does not constitute retaliation, and Arline did not allege facts showing the denial was motivated by his protected conduct. The court granted Arline 45 days to file an amended complaint curing the pleading deficiencies, warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the action.
Key Takeaways
- A single rodent sighting and bird feces in a housing unit, without allegations of prolonged or severe exposure or actual health consequences, are insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim.
- Supervisory liability under § 1983 requires personal involvement or a sufficient causal connection; conclusory allegations that officials ‘should have known’ or ‘failed to take reasonable steps’ without specific facts showing awareness and deliberate indifference are insufficient.
- The denial of a grievance alone, even if allegedly arbitrary or unsupported by evidence, does not constitute an adverse action for a First Amendment retaliation claim absent additional retaliatory conduct.
- Prisoners have no freestanding constitutional entitlement to a specific grievance procedure; a claim based solely on the wrongful denial of a grievance fails to state a claim.
- The court applied the ‘safety-valve’ provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4), ordering the initial filing fee collected only if funds are available, preventing dismissal for inability to pay.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the rigorous screening standard applied to prisoner civil rights complaints under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). It reinforces that Eighth Amendment conditions claims require both an objectively serious deprivation and subjective deliberate indifference, and that supervisory defendants cannot be held liable on a respondeat superior theory.
The decision also clarifies that grievance denial alone is not actionable retaliation, and that prisoners lack a constitutional right to a grievance process. The court’s grant of leave to amend reflects the Ninth Circuit’s strong preference for allowing pro se plaintiffs an opportunity to cure pleading deficiencies before final dismissal.