Collins v. Newsom

Background

Artero Collins, an inmate at California State Prison–Sacramento, filed this self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The operative complaint alleged that, on October 28, 2023, correctional officers Josiah Johnson, Efrain Barragan, Estevan Gonzalez, Chase Cantrall, and David Orosa used excessive force against Collins, including striking him and restricting his breathing. It also alleged that officers Little and Grogan witnessed the incident and failed to stop it. The complaint included state-law assault and battery claims against Johnson, Barragan, Gonzalez, Cantrall, and Orosa.

The parties disputed what happened during the incident. Collins said the officers attacked him while he was handcuffed and said he could not breathe. The defendants said Collins was interfering with a medical response, threatened officers, resisted escort, and lunged toward Johnson, requiring officers to use force to take him to the ground.

Collins received a prison disciplinary conviction related to the incident for assaulting Johnson and was assessed a 90-day loss of credits. He also filed prison grievances concerning the incident. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Collins had not exhausted the prison grievance process for the failure-to-protect claims against Little and Grogan and that the favorable-termination rule barred the excessive-force claims. Collins separately requested a declaratory judgment concerning the summary-judgment motion.

Failure to exhaust administrative remedies

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a prisoner to complete available prison administrative remedies before bringing a federal action about prison conditions. The court held that Collins’s Grievance No. 481860 exhausted his excessive-force claims against the officers it identified, but did not exhaust failure-to-protect claims against Little and Grogan.

The grievance did not name Little or Grogan, describe officers failing to intervene, or otherwise alert prison officials that Collins sought to hold those officers responsible for failing to stop the alleged force. The court held that references to unnamed officers connected to the incident could not reasonably be read as raising failure-to-protect claims against officers who were not alleged to have used excessive force.

The court therefore granted summary judgment in favor of Little and Grogan on the failure-to-protect claim and dismissed those defendants from this action without prejudice to Collins filing a new civil-rights action against them after exhausting administrative remedies.

Favorable-termination rule

The favorable-termination rule generally prevents a § 1983 damages claim when success would necessarily invalidate an outstanding conviction or sentence. The defendants argued that Collins’s excessive-force claims were barred because his disciplinary conviction found that he assaulted Johnson during the same incident.

The court rejected that argument. Collins is serving a life sentence with the possibility of parole, and the court found that overturning the disciplinary conviction would not necessarily shorten his confinement or result in earlier release. The disciplinary violation is only one factor the parole board may consider. The court therefore held that the favorable-termination rule did not bar Collins’s excessive-force claims or his state-law assault and battery claims against Johnson, Barragan, Gonzalez, Cantrall, and Orosa.

The court did not decide whether success on those claims would invalidate the disciplinary finding. It decided only that, even if it did, success would not necessarily lead to Collins’s speedier release.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It granted summary judgment for Little and Grogan on the failure-to-protect claim and dismissed them without prejudice to refiling after exhaustion. It denied summary judgment on the excessive-force, assault, and battery claims against Johnson, Barragan, Gonzalez, Cantrall, and Orosa. It denied as moot Collins’s request for a declaratory judgment concerning the summary-judgment motion.

The court ordered Johnson, Barragan, Gonzalez, Cantrall, and Orosa to file their next dispositive motion within 90 days, unless they informed the court that the case could not be resolved by summary judgment. The order also set deadlines for Collins’s opposition and the defendants’ reply.