Thompson v. Allison

Background

Sekou Kwane Thompson, a prisoner housed at the Correctional Training Facility, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The court reviewed his first amended complaint under the required screening process for prisoner actions against government entities or employees.

The amended complaint named former Correctional Training Facility warden Craig Koeing; facility captains J. Ortega and T. Mak; correctional counselors A. Esparaza and M. Creamer; classification staff representative A. Hernandez; former California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations director Connie Gipson; and an unidentified prison official identified as John Doe. Thompson alleged that officials transferred him to a Level II non-designated programming facility despite his Level I classification and safety concerns. He also alleged that an unidentified official placed a known violent Level II inmate in his cell and that the inmate later attacked him.

Screening of the Amended Complaint

The court held that Thompson’s allegations about placement in a Level II facility did not state an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to prisoner safety. The court said those allegations relied on the conclusion that a Level I prisoner cannot safely be housed in a Level II facility, without enough facts showing that the officials knew Thompson faced a substantial risk of serious harm and consciously disregarded that risk. The court also noted that other courts had rejected an Eighth Amendment challenge to the facility’s merger of certain Level I and Level II prisoner populations.

The court therefore DISMISSED with prejudice Thompson’s Eighth Amendment claims based on his allegation that he should not have been housed on a non-designated programming facility or in a Level II facility because of his Level I classification. Because those were the only claims against Connie Gipson, Craig Koeing, J. Ortega, T. Mak, M. Creamer, A. Esparaza, and A. Hernandez, the court dismissed those defendants from the action.

The court found that Thompson’s allegation that an official deliberately housed him with a known violent inmate possibly stated an Eighth Amendment claim. But the action could not proceed solely against a defendant whose identity was unknown, because the unidentified person could not effectively be served. The court DISMISSED that claim and GRANTED Thompson leave to file a second amended complaint identifying the official by name.

Request for Counsel

Thompson asked the court to appoint a lawyer, citing his inability to afford one, imprisonment, limited law-library access, limited legal knowledge, the complexity of the case, and the possibility of conflicting testimony at trial. The court found no exceptional circumstances at that stage because there was no operative complaint and it was unclear whether Thompson would succeed on the merits. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. therefore DENIED the request for appointment of counsel without prejudice to possible appointment later if circumstances required it.

Result and Next Step

The court ordered Thompson to file a second amended complaint within 28 days of the order. It had to include all claims and defendants he wished to pursue, and he could not reassert the claims that he should not have been housed in a Level II facility because of his Level I classification or that Level I and Level II prisoners should not be housed together. The court warned that failure to file a compliant second amended complaint would result in dismissal of the action without further notice.