Poslof v. Arce

Background

Lonnie Lee Poslof, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison, brought two civil-rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute allowing claims against government officials for violating federal rights. The actions were identified as the 6004 Action and the 6146 Action. The complaints in the two actions were identical. The court reviewed the operative complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires screening a prisoner’s complaint against a governmental entity or officer and dismissing claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.

For screening purposes, the court assumed that Poslof had exhausted his claims and that abstention was not required. The court stated that these assumptions were not findings on either issue and that defendants could later seek dismissal on either ground with a complete record.

Supervisory Defendants

Poslof sued Warden Carlos Arce and Deputy Wardens Ortega, Schuyler, and Fonseca based on their responsibility for supervising other defendants and their learning about Poslof’s injuries after those injuries occurred. The court held that § 1983 does not impose liability merely because an official supervises someone else. It also concluded that learning about injuries after they occurred did not show that these officials caused the injuries. The executive defendants were dismissed from the action without leave to amend.

Medical-Needs Claim

Poslof alleged that Defendant Mendez, a doctor, and Doe mental-health-care defendants provided inadequate mental-health care. The court concluded that his own allegations showed prompt intervention: he was placed on suicide watch, officers stopped his attempted self-harm, and medical staff repeatedly examined him after he injured or threatened to injure himself. Because he did not allege that he was denied appropriate medication or mental-health care, the court dismissed this claim without leave to amend and with prejudice.

Excessive-Force Claim

Poslof alleged that officers grabbed his forearms, slammed him to the floor, carried him while he was restrained, and slammed his face into concrete. He alleged that he went to a hospital and received three or four stitches. The court determined that additional facts might allow him to state an excessive-force claim against De La Rosa, Escalante, Espinosa, Lopez-Vargas, Obodozie, Retamoza-Ramirez, Santana-Zambrano, and ten Doe defendants.

The court required Poslof to identify what each defendant did, including which officers physically touched him and which officers were merely nearby. It also required him either to dismiss defendants against whom he alleged no wrongdoing or to identify their specific actions. The excessive-force claim was dismissed with leave to amend in the 6146 Action.

Disciplinary-Reports Claim

Poslof alleged that officers filed false reports accusing him of battery on a peace officer, resulting in a rules-violation report and administrative segregation. The court held that a prisoner does not have a constitutional claim based solely on a false accusation when the prisoner received the procedural protections required in the disciplinary proceeding. Because Poslof did not challenge the process he received, the court dismissed this claim without leave to amend and with prejudice.

State-Law Claims

Poslof asserted claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and violation of California’s Bane Act. The court concluded that the emotional-distress claim could proceed only if Poslof stated a cognizable excessive-force claim because he based the emotional-distress claim on the alleged assault. The court likewise concluded that the Bane Act claim depended on an adequately pleaded excessive-force claim and that allegations that officers intentionally slammed his face into the ground could be enough to state a Bane Act claim against the responsible officers. Both state-law claims were dismissed with leave to amend in the 6146 Action.

Court-Access Claim

Poslof alleged that prison librarian Tomlinson refused to provide ten copies of documents and refused to electronically file certain papers. To state an access-to-courts claim, Poslof had to show an actual injury to a non-frivolous legal claim. The court found that he did not identify such an underlying claim and that judicially noticeable records showed no actual injury. The records showed that he was able to pursue an appeal and later a habeas matter in the California Supreme Court. The court also concluded that Tomlinson’s refusal to electronically file non-case-opening documents followed the district’s filing rules and did not prevent Poslof from litigating his federal cases. The court dismissed this claim without leave to amend and with prejudice.

Disposition

Judge P. Casey Pitts denied Poslof’s motions to show cause and granted his motions for a screening order. The court dismissed the 6146 Action with leave to amend as to excessive force, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the Bane Act only; all other claims were dismissed with prejudice. Because no claims survived in the 6004 Action, that action was dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Poslof was given 35 days from the filing of the order to file a Third Amended Complaint in the 6146 Action.