Bibbs v. Williams

Background

Carl E. Bibbs, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Hal Williams and other defendants. The original complaint had already been dismissed with leave to amend, and Bibbs filed an amended complaint.

Bibbs alleged that he was improperly found guilty of eight Rules Violation Reports, or RVRs, issued from 2013 through 2016. For several reports, he alleged insufficient evidence or failures to follow required procedures. He also alleged that, for each report, a correctional lieutenant told him to see the clerk. According to Bibbs, the clerk said that an RVR would not appear on his record if he obtained a $200 cash card, which Bibbs said he could not afford. Bibbs alleged that the reports caused him to lose visits, yard and dayroom access, telephone calls, and good-time credits, and changed his minimum eligible parole date. He sought expungement of the reports and money damages.

Screening standards

Because Bibbs was a prisoner seeking relief from governmental actors, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The screening statute requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from a defendant immune from that relief. The court also explained that a complaint must provide enough factual information to make a claim plausible, rather than merely stating labels or legal conclusions.

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a right secured by the Constitution or federal law was violated and that the violation was committed by someone acting under state authority.

Disciplinary claims and available proceedings

The court explained that a prisoner has a protected liberty interest when a punishment creates an unusually severe hardship compared with ordinary prison life or will inevitably affect the length of the sentence. For a disciplinary decision affecting such an interest, due process generally requires written notice, time to prepare, a written decision, an opportunity to present witnesses and documents when safe, and assistance when the issues are complex or the prisoner is unable to read. The decision must also have some reliable evidence supporting it.

The court further explained that a challenge to a disciplinary finding that resulted in the loss of time credits must be brought in a petition challenging the confinement when restoring those credits would necessarily result in earlier release. If Bibbs succeeded in reversing such a finding, he could then bring a civil-rights action seeking money damages. The court stated that Bibbs might be able to pursue a civil-rights claim concerning an RVR that did not cause the loss of time credits but imposed an unusually severe and significant hardship.

The court also discussed the two-year limitations period applicable to § 1983 claims in California and the limited additional tolling period available because of imprisonment. It directed Bibbs to address whether any claims were untimely based on when the RVRs occurred.

Ruling and required amendment

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ruled that Bibbs’s allegations, as presented, had several problems and dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend. The court required Bibbs to describe the punishment for each RVR he wished to challenge and identify which RVRs resulted in the loss of good-time credits affecting his minimum eligible parole date. The court said he could include prison records or other paperwork concerning the reports and punishments.

The court ordered Bibbs to file a second amended complaint by April 6, 2020, using the caption and case number in the order and labeling the first page “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT.” The court explained that the new complaint would replace the prior complaint and must include all claims Bibbs wished to pursue; he could not incorporate the original complaint by reference. The court warned that failure to file could result in dismissal of the case and that failure to prosecute or comply with court orders could also lead to dismissal.