Panah v. State of California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Background

Hooman Panah filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning events at San Quentin State Prison. He alleged that prison officials failed to protect him when another inmate stabbed him on February 4, 2012. His later pleadings also added claims concerning approximately a year of alleged harassment and cell searches on August 21 and October 23, 2011. The operative pleadings asserted federal constitutional claims and California-law claims against multiple prison officials.

Defendants Anderson, Chappell, Ebert, Givens, Hamilton, Luna, McClelland, Odom, Robberecht, and Welton moved to dismiss and sought sanctions based on Panah’s failure to comply with discovery obligations. The court also considered the timeliness of Claim 10 against unserved defendants Moore and Rodriguez.

Motion to Dismiss

The court granted the motion to dismiss on untimeliness grounds. It applied California’s two-year limitations period to the federal claims under § 1983 and the shorter deadlines applicable to California state-law claims. The court held that Panah, who was serving a death sentence, was not entitled to California’s imprisonment-based tolling provision. The court did recognize tolling while Panah pursued required prison grievance procedures and, for state-law claims, while he pursued the government-claims process.

The court dismissed with prejudice the following federal claims as untimely:

- Claim 1, First Amendment retaliation, against Odom and Robberecht; - Claims 2 and 3, concerning First and Sixth Amendment legal-mail rights, against Givens, McLelland, Robberecht, and Welton; - Claim 4, the Eighth Amendment safety claim, against Ebert and Robberecht; and - Claim 10, the Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim, against Chappell, Givens, Jackson, Luna, McLelland, and Robberecht.

The court also dismissed with prejudice the following state-law claims as untimely:

- Claim 5, California constitutional claims equivalent to the federal claims found cognizable; - Claims 6 and 7, Bane Act claims, against Odom, Givens, McLelland, Robberecht, and Welton; - Claim 8, negligence per se, against Anderson, Ebert, Odom, and Robberecht; and - Claim 9, civil conspiracy, against Anderson, Hamilton, Odom, and Robberecht.

The court separately dismissed with prejudice Claim 10 against Moore and Rodriguez because it found that claim untimely in its entirety.

The court rejected Panah’s argument that the later-added claims related back to his original complaint. The original complaint centered on the February 4, 2012 stabbing, while the cell-search claims concerned different events and evidence. The court also found that the harassment claims against Ebert and Robberecht did not relate back because Panah added them as new defendants after the limitations period and had known their identities and alleged involvement before filing the original complaint. The court rejected Panah’s equitable-estoppel, equitable-tolling, and continuing-violation arguments. It did not reach defendants’ additional arguments that certain state-law claims failed the California Government Claims Act’s presentation requirements or failed to state actionable relief because the claims were already untimely.

Remaining Claim

The only remaining claim is Panah’s Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference-to-safety claim against Anderson and Odom, based on the February 4, 2012 stabbing. The clerk was ordered to terminate all other defendants from the action.

Motion for Sanctions

The court denied the defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions without prejudice. Although Panah did not dispute that he failed to respond to written discovery on time, the court found that dismissal as a discovery sanction would be too severe because it would eliminate the remaining claim, public policy favored deciding that claim on its merits, and less severe sanctions were available. The court also noted that Panah had not received specific notice that dismissal could result from his discovery violations.

The court warned that it could reconsider a motion for terminating sanctions if Panah continued failing to comply with discovery requests. It directed Anderson and Odom to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion within 91 days, set Panah’s opposition deadline at 28 days after that motion, and set defendants’ reply deadline at 14 days after the opposition.