Harris v. Bullard

Background

Zackary T. Harris, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed a lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against people acting under state law for violating federal constitutional or statutory rights. The court reviewed his amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires early screening of a prisoner’s lawsuit against a government entity, officer, or employee. Harris also asked the court to appoint a lawyer.

The amended complaint identified Clearlake Police Department officers O’Rielley, Myers, Cook, Kelleher, Hobb, Eagle, and Audiss; California Department of Fish & Game officers Bullard, Jones, and Pascoe; Tow Yards Enterprise Del Prado and All American Two Services John Does 1–3; Lake County public defenders Sullivan, Femer, and Thayer; and Lake County district attorneys or court staff Krones, Abelson, and Deuchar.

Reasons for dismissing the amended complaint

The court said it was unclear what legal claims Harris intended to bring and which defendants he intended to sue. The complaint’s factual section described various alleged constitutional violations, but its “Legal Claims” section listed only certain search-and-seizure, excessive-force, and medical-needs allegations. The court also noted that the facts did not describe deliberate indifference to Harris’s dental or medical needs or identify which defendants allegedly acted indifferently. The court directed Harris, in a second amended complaint, to list each claim, identify the defendant against whom it was asserted, state the supporting facts, and identify the constitutional provision allegedly violated.

The court further found that the complaint continued to violate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20, which limits joining defendants to claims arising from the same transaction or related series of events and involving common legal or factual questions. The court gave examples of allegations that did not appear to arise from the same occurrence, including a claim against Bullard concerning an August 3, 2018 search and claims concerning a different search and alleged excessive force on August 30, 2019. The court instructed Harris to choose claims that met the joinder requirements and said he could bring separate actions for constitutional violations that could not be raised together.

The court stated that the claims against the Lake County public defender and district attorney defendants must be dismissed. It explained that a state prosecutor has absolute immunity under § 1983 for conduct undertaken while pursuing a criminal prosecution as the state’s advocate and that public defenders do not act under state law for § 1983 purposes when acting as advocates. The court also directed Harris to identify every defendant by name rather than using “et al.”

The court additionally stated that false-arrest claims were barred under the rule that a § 1983 plaintiff cannot obtain relief when success would necessarily show that a conviction or sentence is invalid, unless that conviction or sentence has been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or otherwise called into question as described in the order.

Request for appointed counsel

The court denied Harris’s request for appointed counsel because he had not shown exceptional circumstances. In evaluating such a request, the court considered the likelihood of success and Harris’s ability to explain his claims without a lawyer in light of the legal issues’ complexity. The court found that Harris had prosecuted the case capably so far and that the claims described were not particularly complex. The denial was without prejudice to the court appointing counsel on its own at a later date if circumstances warranted it.

Disposition

The court denied the request for appointment of counsel. It dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend and ordered Harris to file a complete second amended complaint within 28 days. The second amended complaint had to use the required caption and case number, include the words “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page, and stand on its own without incorporating earlier pleadings by reference. The court stated that failure to file a compliant second amended complaint within the time allowed would result in dismissal of the action without further notice.