Lees v. CDCR/SVSP-LVN Singsong

Background

Alexander Lees, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal statute allowing claims against people acting under state law for violating federal constitutional or statutory rights. The court screened his second amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires review of a prisoner’s complaint against government entities or employees and permits dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.

Lees alleged that on April 2, 2017, while he was incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison, another inmate attacked and beat him. He alleged that Singsong was assigned to respond to the alarm and provide medical care but did not respond. Lees further alleged that Mariscal handcuffed him behind his back despite his request not to do so, ignored his requests for medical attention, and forced him to walk toward medical care. Lees said he fell and lost consciousness. He alleged that, after he was taken to medical, Singsong ignored his requests for care and treated his injuries as minor.

Lees also alleged that Hogeland ordered him into a holding cell and then beat, kicked, and pummeled him while he was restrained, with Mariscal and Ponce joining the assault. He alleged that the defendants later falsified injury reports and falsely accused him of assaulting staff members.

Claims the Court Found Cognizable

A claim is “cognizable” at screening when the allegations are legally sufficient to proceed; this ruling did not resolve whether Lees will ultimately prove the claims.

The court found that the allegations stated an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against Hogeland, Mariscal, and Ponce. The court explained that the Eighth Amendment prohibits force used maliciously and sadistically to cause harm, and it found the allegation that the defendants beat Lees into unconsciousness while he was restrained sufficient at this stage.

The court also found that Lees stated an Eighth Amendment claim against Singsong for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Deliberate indifference requires allegations that the prisoner had a serious medical need, the official knew of a substantial risk of serious harm, and the official disregarded that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to address it. The court treated Lees’s allegation that Singsong ignored his requests for medical help as sufficient to proceed.

Finally, the court found a due-process claim against Hogeland, Mariscal, Ponce, and Singsong based on the alleged conspiracy to cover up the beating by falsifying injury reports and falsely accusing Lees of assaulting staff members. The opinion noted that the Ninth Circuit had not directly addressed whether false or wrongful accusations alone violate an inmate’s federal due-process rights, but it found the allegations sufficient as pleaded here.

Claims Dismissed

The court dismissed with prejudice—that is, without allowing those claims to be brought again in an amended complaint—the claims based on Singsong’s alleged failure to follow prison regulations when reporting or addressing Lees’s injuries. The court explained that failure to follow state regulations, without more, does not establish a violation of a right protected by the federal Constitution or federal law.

The court also dismissed with prejudice the claims that Hogeland, Mariscal, and Ponce were deliberately indifferent to Lees’s serious medical needs. According to the court, the complaint said Lees was taken to medical after he requested assistance, and the allegations did not allow a reasonable inference that forcing him to walk despite leg cramps and back spasms created a substantial risk of serious harm.

The court likewise dismissed with prejudice the claims that Hogeland, Mariscal, and Ponce forced Lees to walk to medical, that Singsong failed to respond to the alarm, and that Hogeland, Mariscal, and Ponce failed to fulfill a duty of care. The court stated that these allegations did not establish cognizable constitutional claims on the facts pleaded.

Order and Case Status

The court ordered that the cognizable claims were: excessive force against Hogeland, Mariscal, and Ponce; deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Singsong; and the due-process claim concerning alleged falsified reports and false accusations against all four defendants.

The clerk was ordered to issue summonses, and the United States Marshal was ordered to serve Mariscal, Ponce, and Singsong without requiring advance payment of fees. The opinion states that Hogeland had already been served and had appeared. The defendants were required to file a summary-judgment motion or another motion that could dispose of the case within 91 days after the order was filed. The court also authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and set deadlines for Lees’s opposition and the defendants’ reply.

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order on May 13, 2021.