Milliken v. Maylin

Background

James M. Milliken, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against A. Maylin and another official at Pelican Bay State Prison. He alleged that the officials violated the Eighth Amendment by placing him on contraband surveillance watch (CSW).

After an in-person visit with his wife on March 4, 2017, Milliken was scanned for contraband. Maylin testified that the scan showed a hard-edged circular item between Milliken’s pelvic bones and above his scrotum. Maylin’s supervisor, Deters, reviewed the image and concluded that it sufficiently suggested contraband to justify CSW placement. Milliken disputed that the scan showed contraband.

Milliken remained on CSW for approximately 44 hours. During that time, he was kept under constant observation in a small cell with the lights on. His clothing was taped, and he was placed in handcuffs, waist restraints, and hand-isolation devices. He had to urinate and defecate in a lined bucket while being observed. The record also showed that he received meals, medical checks, medication, opportunities to wash, and a mattress and blanket. No contraband was found during his bowel movements or later scan. Milliken reported headaches, lost sleep, back pain, lost property, a missed contact visit, and emotional distress.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence shows that no reasonable jury could find for the opposing party. Milliken opposed the motion and separately asked the court to pause its ruling so he could obtain additional discovery.

Qualified Immunity

The court analyzed qualified immunity, a protection that generally shields government officials from damages when their conduct did not violate a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time. The court assumed for purposes of its analysis that Milliken’s allegations could state an Eighth Amendment claim.

The court held that the law was not clearly established when Milliken was placed on CSW that a 44-hour placement under these conditions was sufficiently serious to violate the Eighth Amendment. The court relied in part on Ninth Circuit precedent involving CSW conditions that were similar in some respects and harsher in others, lasting six days. The Ninth Circuit had not held that those conditions violated the Eighth Amendment, and the court identified no case clearly establishing that a CSW placement lasting less than two days violated the Constitution.

The court also rejected Milliken’s arguments that the officials violated prison policy, lacked sufficient scanner training, lied about the scan, or conducted too many scans. It explained that violating prison policy alone does not establish a violation of federal law under § 1983. It further found no evidence that the number of scans jeopardized Milliken’s health or safety, and it concluded that the submitted scan was consistent with the officials’ testimony. The fact that no contraband was ultimately found did not establish a genuine dispute about what the officials observed in the scan.

Because the court resolved the claim on the clearly established-law requirement for qualified immunity, it did not reach the defendants’ alternative argument that the CSW conditions were not objectively serious enough to violate the Eighth Amendment.

Motion to Stay

The court denied Milliken’s request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) to delay summary judgment for additional discovery. The requested information concerned the defendants’ scanner training, other scans, CSW placements involving other inmates, and other inmates’ experiences. The court held that this information was not relevant to the objective question whether the conditions Milliken experienced were sufficiently harsh to implicate the Eighth Amendment. The court also noted that some information about training and CSW placement rates appeared already to have been available to Milliken.

Disposition

Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied Milliken’s motion to stay. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 26 and 28.