Dunbar v. Arnold

Background

Eddie L. Dunbar, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials. Section 1983 provides a way to seek relief for violations of federal constitutional or statutory rights by persons acting under state law.

Dunbar alleged that he received three rules-violation reports for indecent exposure at San Quentin State Prison in May, August, and September 2020. He alleged that the accusations were false and that he did not receive all protections required by due process. He also alleged that officials involved in reporting, investigating, and conducting the disciplinary hearings conspired to harass and oppress him.

Screening and Claims

Because Dunbar sought to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court screened the complaint under the federal prisoner-screening statutes. The court explained that it had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, or sought money from an immune defendant. It also explained that self-represented complaints must be read liberally but still must contain enough facts to make a claim plausible.

The court held that, when read liberally, Dunbar’s allegations about the disciplinary proceedings stated a cognizable Section 1983 due-process claim. The defendants alleged to have participated in those violations included Lieutenants Texeira, M. Frangos, and S. Willingham, and Correctional Officers C. Fuller, L. Peters, S. Arena, M. Sotelo, J. Bem, T. Johnson, and G. Anguiano.

The court dismissed the remaining claims. It identified as insufficient the claims that certain defendants mocked, laughed at, or humiliated Dunbar and that he did not receive a prisoner handbook or other materials. It identified as unrelated and improperly joined the claims concerning classification hearings, including allegations that the hearings were not properly conducted or that Dunbar did not attend them. The order did not state that the dismissals were with or without prejudice.

Order

The court ordered that the due-process claims relating to the disciplinary proceedings could proceed and that all other claims were dismissed. It directed the clerk to issue summonses and the United States Marshal to serve the complaint and order, without prepayment of fees, on Lieutenants Texeira, M. Frangos, and S. Willingham; Correctional Officers C. Fuller, L. Peters, S. Arena, J. Bem, T. Johnson, and G. Anguiano at San Quentin State Prison; and Correctional Officer M. Sotelo at Folsom State Prison.

The served defendants were ordered to answer. The order also directed them to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion no later than 91 days after the order was filed, subject to the response and reply deadlines stated in the order. Discovery could proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court granted leave to proceed without prepayment of fees in a separate order.

Judge William Alsup signed the order on December 15, 2020. This was a screening and service order; it identified claims that could proceed but did not resolve whether Dunbar would ultimately prevail on those claims.