Baptiste v. Hatton

Background

Kenneth E. Baptiste, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He is an inmate at California Training Facility–Central and participates in a mental-health placement program for a mental disorder. His amended complaint named Correctional Counselor II B. Martinez, staff psychologist DeAntoni, Senior Psychologist Wynn, Chief of Mental Health J. Howlin, Warden Hatton, and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Healthcare Services Deputy Director of Policy and Risk Management J. Lewis.

Baptiste alleged that Martinez denied his request to have single-cell status reinstated at a June 22, 2016 classification hearing. He alleged that DeAntoni, Wynn, and Howlin also denied the request at an August 3, 2016 treatment-team housing and program recommendation hearing. He further alleged that Lewis reviewed the matter and Hatton was aware of it, but neither reinstated his single-cell status. He sought reinstatement of that status.

Screening of the Amended Complaint

Because Baptiste sought relief from governmental officials, the court reviewed the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening procedure requires the court to identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant.

The court dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend because it did not state what federal constitutional or statutory right was violated by the denial of single-cell status or explain how the denial violated that right. The court ordered Baptiste to file a second amended complaint within 28 days. The new complaint must include all claims and defendants he wishes to pursue and may not incorporate earlier complaints by reference. The court warned that failing to file the required complaint on time would result in dismissal of the action without further notice.

Temporary Restraining Order

Baptiste filed a motion for relief from the court’s earlier order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and (6). The court explained that the earlier order, which denied a request for an emergency preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order, was not a final order. The court therefore treated the new motion as a renewed request for an emergency temporary restraining order.

The court denied the renewed ex parte request. It reasoned that Baptiste had been housed in a single cell since April 2017 even though he did not have single-cell status, making the alleged potential injury not immediate. The court also relied on its earlier conclusion that the injuries Baptiste described from double-celling—cell moves, confrontations, and rules-violation reports—were not the type of irreparable injuries requiring issuance of an emergency order.

Disposition

The court denied the renewed ex parte request for a temporary restraining order and dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend. The order terminated the motion identified as Docket No. 8.