Thomas v. Dart

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying plaintiff-prisoner’s motion to amend his complaint for third time in section 1983 action, alleging that defendants-certain prison officials failed to protect him from assault by another prisoner. Plaintiff’s original complaint, as well as first two amendments asserted that plaintiff had told guards stationed in his housing unit that another inmate had threatened him, and plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed for failure of plaintiff to name correctional officers some two years after lawsuit had been filed. In his proposed third amended complaint, plaintiff changed his theory of the case and alleged that two intake clerks had obscured his report of his PTSD condition, and that said clerks had failed to make other officers aware of his PTSD condition that made him more vulnerable to attacks by other prisoners. Dist. Ct. could properly deny plaintiff’s request to file third-amended complaint, where third-amended complaint failed to allege viable theory of liability, where: (1) plaintiff could not plausibly allege that reasonable officers in intake officers’ position would have known about specific risk to plaintiff by other inmate at time of their purportedly wrongful conduct; and (2) first threat to plaintiff from inmate who assaulted him came after intake clerks’ involvement with plaintiff had ended. Fact that plaintiff was housed in general population while suffering from PTSD is not particular enough risk to support failure-to-protect claim.