Millen v. Morris

Background

Jonathan Millen, a California prisoner incarcerated at High Desert State Prison, filed this case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He complained about conditions of confinement at San Quentin State Prison, where he had previously been housed. Millen alleged that on March 29, 2017, correctional officer Morris struck him with a night stick, pushed him onto a bed so that he hit his head on a wall, and then landed on top of him. Millen alleged that he attempted suicide afterward, was placed in a crisis bed, and was placed in the EOP level of mental-health care.

Screening and analysis

Because Millen was a prisoner seeking relief from governmental defendants, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also said it must read a self-represented litigant's pleading liberally.

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and conduct by a person acting under state law. The court explained that excessive physical force by prison officials can violate the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The key question is whether the force was used in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or instead was used maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.

Although Millen described the incident as showing deliberate indifference to his health and safety, the court treated the allegations as an excessive-force claim because they described a physical attack. The court concluded that the complaint stated a cognizable § 1983 claim against Morris for excessive force.

Millen also named four additional defendants: the prison warden, captain, lieutenant, and Sergeant Nelson. The court found that Millen did not allege that any of them did or failed to do anything that violated his constitutional rights. It further explained that § 1983 does not impose liability on a supervisor merely because the supervisor is in charge of a prison or because another employee allegedly violated the Constitution. The court therefore dismissed those four defendants.

Order

The court ruled that the complaint stated a cognizable § 1983 claim against correctional officer Morris for violating Millen's Eighth Amendment rights. It dismissed all other claims and defendants. The clerk was ordered to issue a summons, and the United States Marshal was ordered to serve Morris without prepayment of fees.

The court also set a briefing schedule for a possible summary-judgment or other dispositive motion, provided Millen with warnings about opposing summary judgment, allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and directed Millen to serve court filings on defense counsel or Morris as required. Judge Susan Illston signed the order on December 13, 2019. The opinion is a preliminary screening order and does not resolve the ultimate merits of Millen's claim against Morris.