King v. Davis

Background

Leonard King, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed this self-represented civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had previously dismissed his complaint while allowing him to correct identified problems. King then filed an amended complaint and another amended complaint; the most recent amended complaint replaced the earlier pleadings and was reviewed under the prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

King alleged that Sandra Velasco filed a disciplinary report accusing him of striking her with a laundry cart after an exchange of words. He alleged that he was removed from his job, placed in administrative segregation for 45 days, later given another 180 days in the special housing unit, and deprived of 160 days of time credits. He also alleged that prison medical staff placed a transfer hold after a spot on his toe developed gangrene and that doctors later performed a below-knee amputation.

Disciplinary proceedings

The court concluded that the amended complaint did not state a due-process claim based on the disciplinary proceedings. Because King alleged that he received more than 180 days in the special housing unit, the court determined that he had alleged an atypical and significant hardship creating a protected liberty interest. But that was only the first part of the claim. King also had to identify the required procedural protections that he did not receive.

The court explained that required protections can include written notice, time to prepare, a written decision, witnesses and documentary evidence when allowing them would not create an undue hazard, assistance when necessary, and some reliable evidence supporting the disciplinary decision. The court found that King’s allegations and incomplete documents did not make clear what type of hearing occurred, who found him guilty, whether he received a hearing before a hearing officer, or whether he was denied a particular procedural protection.

The court also explained that due process did not require prison officials to accept King’s defense. The question was whether some evidence supported the disciplinary decision, not whether the court should reweigh the evidence or reassess witness credibility. The report and a document from Velasco appeared to provide some evidence supporting the decision. If King intended to claim that there was no supporting evidence, or that he was denied witnesses he requested, the court directed him to allege the necessary facts and identify the responsible person or persons.

The court granted leave to amend so King could try to state a due-process claim by identifying the specific protections he was denied, the date he was found guilty, and the date the special-housing term was imposed. The court also directed him to provide documents concerning the disciplinary hearing and classification committee’s decision if available.

Medical-care claim

The court concluded that the amended complaint also failed to state an Eighth Amendment medical-care claim. Such a claim requires facts showing a serious medical need and deliberate indifference by a defendant. Deliberate indifference means that the defendant knew of and consciously disregarded a serious health risk, and King also had to explain what each defendant did or failed to do.

The court found that King adequately alleged a serious medical need because the condition of his toe eventually required an amputation. But it found that he did not allege facts showing that any defendant acted with deliberate indifference. The court said it was too speculative to hold that a person whose decision placed King in the special housing unit was responsible for medical problems that later arose there. King was allowed to try to allege what each defendant did or failed to do that caused him to need the amputation, beyond merely filing charges or presiding over the disciplinary hearing.

Disposition

The court dismissed the amended complaint with further leave to amend. King was ordered to file a complete second amended complaint by August 31, 2020, with “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. The court warned that failure to file by that deadline would result in dismissal of the action.