Sims v. Diaz

Background

Derrick J. Sims filed this self-represented prisoner civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning conditions at Pelican Bay State Prison. The court reviewed the complaint under the federal prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Sims also moved for a preliminary injunction requiring defendants to stop violating his constitutional rights and to transfer him to the Restricted Custody General Population unit at Corcoran State Prison.

Sims alleged that he had spent fourteen years in solitary confinement before being moved to Pelican Bay’s Restricted Custody General Population unit in March 2016. He alleged that prison officials knew he had been targeted for assault, that he was attacked three times, and that he suffered injuries. He also alleged that Officer McDonald used excessive force after Sims kicked another inmate during a melee, took Sims’s address books, and that Officer Hamner shot him twice with a 40-millimeter gun during a later attack. Sims further alleged due-process violations, retaliation, property deprivation, state-law violations, and problems involving other inmates.

Complaint screening

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and action by a person acting under state authority. The court concluded that the complaint had several deficiencies and granted leave to amend.

Failure to protect. The court found that the alleged attacks presented an objectively serious condition, but held that the complaint did not plausibly allege that a particular defendant knew of and disregarded a substantial risk to Sims’s safety. The allegations did not identify a specific threat known to a defendant at the restricted unit or show that a particular defendant failed to take reasonable protective steps. The allegations concerning Correctional Counselor II Durham’s disclosure of a memorandum and later allegedly falsified report also did not state a deliberate-indifference claim. The court required Sims to allege facts showing deliberate indifference by each defendant he sought to hold liable.

Due process. The court held that Sims did not present a coherent due-process theory. He did not allege facts showing deprivation of a sufficiently significant liberty interest or identify the procedural protections that should have been provided. He also did not adequately connect defendants to this claim.

Excessive force. Construing the complaint liberally, the court held that Sims stated a § 1983 excessive-force claim against Officer McDonald based on the August 6, 2017 incident. The court also held that he stated an excessive-force claim against Officer Hamner based on the alleged August 26, 2018 shooting. These were identified as cognizable claims in the order.

Retaliation. The court dismissed the retaliation claim against McDonald because Sims did not plausibly allege that McDonald acted because Sims engaged in constitutionally protected conduct. The court noted that Sims had kicked another inmate, which was not protected activity, and that an adverse action taken in response would not support a retaliation claim.

Address books. The court held that the alleged loss or theft of Sims’s address books was a random and unauthorized property deprivation. Because California provides an adequate state remedy after such a deprivation, the claim was not actionable under § 1983, although the conduct might support a state-law claim.

State-law claims. Sims alleged that he had presented a claim to California’s claims board, but the complaint did not state when the claim was presented or rejected. The court held that Sims needed to provide those dates, identify the particular state-law claims, and connect each claim to individual defendants.

Immunity and other inmates’ claims. The court dismissed all § 1983 claims against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation without leave to amend because the agency is protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity. It also explained that damages claims against state officials in their official capacities are barred by that immunity, while claims for prospective injunctive relief against individual defendants in their official capacities and damages claims against them in their individual capacities may proceed. Sims could assert only violations of his own rights, not claims based on injuries to other inmates.

The court also found that, except for the excessive-force and address-book allegations, Sims had not adequately linked individual defendants to particular claims. It directed him to identify each defendant and explain what that person did or failed to do.

Preliminary injunction

The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. Sims did not provide evidence showing that he was currently in danger at Pelican Bay’s restricted unit or that transferring him to Corcoran would solve the alleged problem. The court also found that the complaint did not show a likelihood of success on the failure-to-protect claim against any particular defendant and did not establish likely and immediate irreparable injury.

Disposition

The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Sims was required to file a complete amended complaint by November 15, 2019, using the case caption and number from the order and marking the first page “AMENDED COMPLAINT.” The motion for a preliminary injunction was denied. The order stated that failure to meet the deadline would result in dismissal of all claims except those identified as cognizable.