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 had previously dismissed his original complaint with leave to amend, and Sims filed an amended complaint. The court reviewed the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the statute requiring screening of prisoner complaints against government officials.

Sims alleged that, after fourteen years in solitary confinement, he was housed in the prison’s Restricted Custody General Population unit because of safety concerns. He alleged that officials knew he had been targeted for assault by affiliates of a security threat group but kept him in that unit and did not take reasonable steps to protect him. He alleged that he was attacked three times: he was stabbed on July 18, 2017; subjected to an attempted stabbing on August 6, 2017; and attacked by two inmates on August 26, 2018.

Sims also alleged that correctional officer McDonald used excessive force against him after Sims kicked another inmate in the face on August 6, 2017. Sims alleged that McDonald took him to the ground, pressed a knee into his back, caused severe pain, and impeded his breathing. Sims further alleged that correctional officers Koons and Calkins each shot him once with a 40-millimeter gun while other inmates were stabbing him on August 26, 2018. Sims alleged that McDonald took address books from his sock and did not return them, which Sims characterized as retaliation.

Claims the Court Allowed to Proceed

The court held that, liberally construing the amended complaint, Sims stated an Eighth Amendment claim against Gipson, Diaz, Allison, Robertson, Durham, Neilson, Bradbury, Pepiot, Bell, Burris, Gaona, Golden, and Holden for deliberate indifference to a risk to his safety. Deliberate indifference requires allegations that a prison official knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to a prisoner’s health or safety. The court found the allegations sufficient because these defendants allegedly learned that Sims was targeted for attack but retained him in a unit where affiliates of the security threat group were present, and one or more attacks allegedly occurred afterward.

The court expressly stated that it did not recognize a claim based solely on Sims’s original placement in the Restricted Custody General Population unit. The recognized failure-to-protect claim concerned retaining Sims there after officials allegedly knew of the danger.

The court also held that Sims stated a § 1983 claim against correctional officer McDonald for allegedly using excessive force on August 6, 2017. It further held that Sims stated a § 1983 claim against correctional officers Coons and Calkins for allegedly using excessive force on August 26, 2018.

Claims and Defendants Dismissed

The court held that the amended complaint still failed to state a due-process claim. Sims referred to notice, a hearing, and a protected liberty interest, but did not allege facts plausibly showing a deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest. The court denied further leave to amend that claim because it concluded amendment would be futile.

The court also dismissed Sims’s retaliation claim against McDonald. It concluded that Sims did not plausibly allege that McDonald took adverse action because Sims exercised a constitutional right. Kicking another inmate was not constitutionally protected activity, so an alleged response to that conduct could not support a retaliation claim. The court denied further leave to amend that claim because it concluded amendment would be futile.

The court dismissed Sims’s state-law claim concerning the allegedly lost or stolen address books. It explained that Sims alleged the claim was presented to the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board more than nineteen months after the alleged loss, while California law required presentation within six months of accrual. The court denied further leave to amend that claim because it concluded amendment would be futile.

The court dismissed all § 1983 damages claims against defendants in their official capacities because the Eleventh Amendment protects states and state officials sued in their official capacities from such damages claims. It stated that claims for prospective injunctive relief against officials in their official capacities could go forward, and that damages claims against officials in their individual capacities could go forward. The conclusion states that all other claims and defendants were dismissed.

Appointment of Counsel and Case Management

Sims requested appointed counsel. The court denied that request, finding no exceptional circumstances because Sims had adequately explained his claims without a lawyer, the claims did not appear particularly complex, and there did not appear to be a likelihood of success on the merits.

The court ordered the clerk to issue summonses and directed the United States Marshal to serve the amended complaint and the order on the defendants associated with the recognized claims. It set deadlines for defendants’ dispositive motions, Sims’s opposition, and any reply. The court also stated that discovery could proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.