Diggs v. Clenindimd

Background

Michael La Roy Diggs, an inmate at Patton State Hospital, filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. He challenged events and omissions at Napa State Hospital, where he had previously been housed. The court had dismissed his original complaint but allowed him to amend it. This order reviewed his first amended complaint under the federal screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Diggs alleged that he objected on religious grounds to participating in NA, AA, and MA substance-abuse programs because of their religious components. He claimed that hospital personnel required him to participate as a condition of progress toward release and retaliated after he refused. He also asserted claims involving disciplinary loss of credit time, verbal harassment, disability discrimination, allegedly false reports in state-court proceedings, and gender discrimination.

Screening Rulings

Institutional Defendants

The court reiterated that the State of California, Napa State Hospital, and the California Department of State Hospitals were protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity. Those institutional defendants were dismissed from the action.

Disciplinary Credit-Time Claim

Diggs alleged that he lost disciplinary credit time without a hearing, evidence, or an opportunity to appeal after drugs were allegedly mailed to the hospital but were not received by him. The court held that the amended complaint did not state a claim because the institutional defendants were immune and Diggs did not identify or link any individual defendant to this claim. The court stated that it would not allow further amendment of this claim. The court also explained that a challenge to credit loss affecting the duration of confinement must be brought through a federal petition challenging custody after state remedies are exhausted.

Religious-Freedom Claim

The court held that the amended complaint stated a First Amendment claim against Amy Davis, Patricia Tyler, Stephanie Clendenin, and Sterling Price. Accepting the allegations at the screening stage, the court concluded that requiring a patient or inmate to attend a religiously rooted recovery program as a condition of release can violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. The claim did not proceed against the State of California, Napa State Hospital, or the Department of State Hospitals because of their immunity.

Retaliation Claim

The court held that Diggs stated a retaliation claim against Amy Davis, Patricia Tyler, Cindy Black, Stephanie Clendenin, and Sterling Price. He alleged that these defendants took adverse actions affecting his advancement toward release and access to benefits or programs because he refused to participate in the twelve-step programs based on a religious objection. The court again found that the institutional defendants could not be sued because of Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Verbal-Harassment Claim

The court dismissed the claim based on alleged verbal harassment. It held that verbal harassment alone is not actionable under § 1983 and noted that Diggs did not allege that physical force or medication was used against him or that the verbal conduct caused a legally actionable consequence beyond possible stress and agitation.

Disability-Discrimination Claims

Diggs alleged that defendants discriminated against him because of Amphetamine Use Disorder under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The court held that these allegations did not state a claim because they attributed his removal from programs and denial of advancement to his religious protests and refusal to participate, rather than to a disability. The court noted that the related retaliation claim had been found legally sufficient.

False Reports in State-Court Proceedings

The court dismissed Diggs’s claim that Patricia Tyler and Cindy Black directed or signed allegedly false reports concerning his mental illness, treatment needs, and conduct. It applied the rule from Heck v. Humphrey, which generally bars a damages claim when success would imply that a confinement-related decision is invalid unless that decision has already been successfully overturned. The court reasoned that success on this claim would call into question the state court’s denial of Diggs’s petition seeking restoration of sanity and release from the hospital.

Gender-Discrimination Claim

The court held that the amended complaint stated an equal-protection claim against Amy Davis. Diggs alleged that male patients with substance-use histories were required to participate in the hospital’s program and were rarely allowed to leave it unless discharged, while women and transgender people with substance-use disorders were not subjected to the same requirement. The court found these allegations sufficient to proceed at the screening stage.

Appointment of Counsel

The court denied Diggs’s second request for appointed counsel. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), appointed counsel for an indigent civil litigant requires exceptional circumstances, evaluated by considering the likelihood of success and the litigant’s ability to present the claims in light of their complexity. The court found that Diggs had adequately presented his claims and that the legal issues were not particularly complex.

Order and Case Status

The court stated that the amended complaint presented legally sufficient claims against Amy Davis, Patricia Tyler, Cindy Black, Sterling Price, and Stephanie Clendenin, and that all other defendants were dismissed. It ordered the United States Marshal to serve those five defendants without requiring advance payment of fees. It also set deadlines for dispositive motions, opposition, and any reply, and allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order did not resolve the surviving claims on the merits.