Dunbar v. Coffman

Background

Eddie Dunbar, a state prisoner representing himself, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He sued Correctional Officer K. Coffman, Correctional Lieutenant J. Sweet, and Correctional Captain L. Deters, all identified as employees of Pelican Bay State Prison. Dunbar sought monetary and punitive damages.

Dunbar alleged that, on or about April 26, 2022, Coffman said Dunbar had drugs concealed in his intestines based on an x-ray scan. Dunbar alleged that Sweet questioned him about the accusation and that Coffman and Sweet threatened or prepared to use force to remove him from a holding cell and place him back in segregation under contraband watch. Dunbar claimed he was placed on contraband watch for two or three days, kept in a small cell without a bed until after 8 p.m. each day, and required to keep his undergarments and clothing taped to his body.

Dunbar also alleged that, while he was fasting for Ramadan, unnamed prison officials required him to consume food to produce three bowel movements required by contraband-watch procedures. He alleged that officials handcuffed him and made him defecate on a handicap chair in front of several officials, and that officials sometimes rejected the amount of fecal matter produced and prolonged his confinement. Dunbar alleged that later examination found no drugs or contraband and that he suffered physical, emotional, psychological, religious, and dignitary harm. He also alleged that Sweet’s conduct was retaliation for his filing prison grievances.

Screening standard

Because Dunbar was a prisoner seeking relief from government employees, the court conducted an initial screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court was required to identify claims that were legally sufficient and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also stated that it would read a self-represented plaintiff’s allegations liberally.

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a federal right was violated and that the violation was committed by a person acting under state law. The court also explained that each defendant’s liability must be based on that defendant’s own acts or omissions or on a sufficient causal connection to the alleged violation; liability cannot rest solely on a supervisor’s position.

Claims and rulings

Eighth Amendment

Dunbar claimed that the conditions of his contraband-watch confinement violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The court explained that a prison-conditions claim requires an objectively serious deprivation and a sufficiently culpable state of mind, generally deliberate indifference to an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health or safety.

Reading Dunbar’s allegations liberally, the court held that his allegations about the conditions of confinement—including the taped clothing, forced defecation in front of officials, alleged rejection of fecal matter that prolonged the watch, and the later finding that he had no contraband—stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Coffman, Sweet, and Deters. The court therefore allowed that claim to proceed.

Fourteenth Amendment due process

The court dismissed Dunbar’s Fourteenth Amendment claim with leave to amend. The court stated that Dunbar did not identify a specific due-process violation and that no disciplinary violation was issued against him. The court concluded that the complaint therefore alleged no facts establishing due-process liability against the defendants.

First Amendment retaliation

The court dismissed Dunbar’s retaliation claim with leave to amend. A prisoner bringing a retaliation claim must allege adverse action taken because of protected conduct, such as filing a grievance or lawsuit, an effect that chilled the exercise of First Amendment rights, and a lack of reasonable advancement of a legitimate correctional goal.

The court found Dunbar’s retaliation allegation conclusory. In particular, he did not allege facts showing that the defendants’ conduct was directly in response to a specific grievance, lawsuit, or threat to file one, and he did not allege facts showing a chilling effect. The court stated that an amended claim against Sweet would need facts supporting each required element.

First Amendment religious practice

The court also dismissed Dunbar’s religious-practice claim with leave to amend. Dunbar alleged that unnamed officials required him to break his Ramadan fast to produce the bowel movements required by contraband-watch procedures. The court found that he did not identify specific named defendants who denied his religious rights or describe what those defendants did.

The court stated that, to plead a cognizable free-exercise claim, Dunbar must identify the responsible defendants, describe their actions, allege interference with conduct required by his faith, and show that the interference was not reasonably related to legitimate prison interests.

Order

The court ordered a partial dismissal with leave to amend and service of the cognizable claim. Dunbar was given 28 days from the date of the order to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must use the required caption and case number, state that it is an amended complaint, use the court’s complaint form, and include all claims Dunbar wished to pursue, including the Eighth Amendment claim already found cognizable. He could not incorporate the prior complaint by reference.

The court ordered service on Coffman, Sweet, and Deters through the stated California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation electronic-service process. The court also set procedures for the defendants’ answers, dispositive motions, discovery, communications, and future filings. If Dunbar did not timely file a compliant amended complaint, the order stated that his Fourteenth and First Amendment claims would be dismissed, the initial complaint would remain the operative complaint, and the action would proceed under the order.