Sims v. Diaz

Background

Derrick J. Sims brought a self-represented prisoner civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that Housing Defendants were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk to his safety, that Correctional Officer McDonald used excessive force against him, and that Correctional Officers Calkins and Koons used excessive force when they shot him with 40-millimeter impact rounds during an attack by other inmates. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the merits and argued that Sims had not exhausted the prison grievance process for his claim against Calkins and Koons.

Sims had been housed in the Restricted Custody General Population unit at Pelican Bay State Prison. Prison officials had information that members or affiliates of the EME prison gang targeted him for assault, and Sims was attacked three times while housed there. The record showed that officials offered Sims placement in a special-needs yard and walk-alone status, but Sims repeatedly stated that he had no safety concerns, wanted general-population placement, and could safely participate in group activities. Officials also gave him confidential-information disclosure forms describing threats against him.

During the August 6, 2017 incident, Sims was handcuffed after an attempted stabbing assault by another inmate. As Sims was being picked up, he kicked another inmate in the face. Sims alleged that McDonald then slammed him to the ground, pinned him with his full body weight for up to ten minutes, continued after Sims said he could not breathe, and caused a rotator-cuff injury. McDonald stated that he held Sims down until he decided it was safe to bring him to his feet.

During the August 26, 2018 incident, Calkins and Koons each shot Sims with a 40-millimeter impact round. Sims’s only grievance that reached the highest level mentioned that staff had shot him during an assault, but it did not identify Calkins or Koons, give the incident date, or state that the shooting was improper. The court found that this grievance addressed the alleged failure to protect Sims rather than excessive force.

Failure-to-Protect Claim

The court held that the threat from EME members and affiliates was serious enough to satisfy the objective part of Sims’s Eighth Amendment claim. But it granted summary judgment to the Housing Defendants because no reasonable jury could find that they deliberately disregarded the risk. The officials warned Sims about the danger and offered protective housing, while Sims rejected those options and repeatedly affirmed that he could safely remain in group housing.

The court also granted the Housing Defendants qualified immunity. Qualified immunity generally protects government officials from damages when their conduct did not violate a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time. The court concluded that Sims had not shown a constitutional violation and that no controlling case clearly required officials to place an inmate in protective housing when the inmate knew of the threat but refused the offered protection.

Excessive-Force Claim Against McDonald

The court denied summary judgment on Sims’s excessive-force claim against McDonald. Under the Eighth Amendment, the question is whether force was used in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore order or instead maliciously and excessively to cause harm.

Viewing the evidence in Sims’s favor, a reasonable jury could find that McDonald’s initial use of force was justified after Sims kicked another inmate, but that continuing to pin Sims down with full body weight after the hostilities ended, when no unsecured inmates were nearby, and despite Sims’s complaint that he could not breathe, was unnecessary and excessive. McDonald’s account could support a contrary conclusion, so the dispute required a jury to assess the facts and credibility. The court also denied McDonald’s qualified-immunity defense because, under Sims’s version of events, a reasonable officer would have understood that this conduct was unlawful.

Excessive-Force Claims Against Calkins and Koons

The court granted summary judgment to Calkins and Koons on the affirmative defense that Sims failed to exhaust available administrative remedies. Prisoners must properly complete the available grievance process before bringing a federal action about prison conditions. The court determined that Sims’s grievance did not properly exhaust the shooting claim because it did not name the officers, identify the shooting date, or explain why the shooting was wrongful. The grievance was also filed more than thirty days after the incident, making it untimely under the applicable prison rules.

The court dismissed the excessive-force claim against Calkins and Koons without prejudice to Sims filing a new action if he properly exhausts the administrative remedies for that claim. Because the claim was dismissed for failure to exhaust, the court did not decide its merits.

Disposition and Mediation

The court held that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part. Summary judgment was granted to the Housing Defendants on the failure-to-protect claim and to Calkins and Koons on the excessive-force claim. The claim against Calkins and Koons was dismissed without prejudice. Summary judgment was denied as to the excessive-force claim against McDonald.

Judge Susan Illston referred the remaining claim to the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation and Settlement Program. The order required Sims to attend and participate in the mediation or settlement conference.