Harris v. Atchley
- Edward Chen
- 3:21-cv-06577
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 14
In Harris v. Atchley, Judge Chen dismissed Michael Jay Harris’s claims, denied his temporary-restraining-order request, and denied his fee-waiver request as moot.
Michael Jay Harris’s education, sensitive-needs-housing, and access-to-the-courts claims were dismissed. The education and housing claims may be raised in a new action after proper exhaustion, while the access-to-the-courts claim was dismissed with prejudice. Matthew Atchley and the other defendants were affected by the dismissal of the claims against them.
What happened
In Harris v. Atchley, the court dismissed Michael Jay Harris’s civil-rights case without allowing another amended complaint. The court said Harris filed his education and prison-housing claims before completing the prison grievance process, but allowed him to bring those claims in a new case after exhaustion.
Harris, a prisoner without a lawyer, challenged a possible transfer from Salinas Valley State Prison to another facility. He claimed the transfer would disrupt his college education and place him in unsafe housing, and also claimed prison officials interfered with his access to the courts by not expediting his grievances. He separately asked the court to temporarily block the transfer.
Judge Edward Chen dismissed the education and housing claims without prejudice to filing a new action after exhaustion, dismissed the access-to-courts claim with prejudice, denied Harris’s temporary restraining order, and denied his request to proceed without paying filing fees as moot.
The detailed version
- Harris v. Atchley · No. 3:21-cv-06577
- Edward Chen
- Jan. 14, 2022
Background
Michael Jay Harris, a prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, sued Matthew Atchley and other defendants over a possible transfer from Salinas Valley State Prison to the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in Corcoran, California. Harris alleged that the transfer would disrupt his college courses and place him outside sensitive-needs housing, which he associated with safety concerns. He also alleged that prison officials violated his right of access to the courts by refusing to expedite or otherwise process his grievances as he wanted.
Harris filed his original complaint on August 25, 2021, and his First Amended Complaint on October 11, 2021. At those times, his prison grievances and appeals concerning education and housing had not completed the required administrative review. Harris also filed a third request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, seeking emergency relief related to the transfer. He requested permission to proceed without paying filing fees.
Rulings on the Claims
The court dismissed the education-related claim because Harris had not exhausted available prison grievance procedures before filing suit. He appealed the relevant grievance denial on October 8, 2021, more than a month after filing the original complaint. The court held that later exhaustion could not cure the premature filing. It dismissed this claim without leave to amend and without prejudice to filing a new action after proper exhaustion.
The court likewise dismissed the sensitive-needs-housing claim for failure to exhaust. Harris appealed his housing-related grievances on October 4 and October 9, 2021, while the amended complaint raising the claim was filed on October 11, 2021. The court concluded that the required response periods had not yet expired when Harris filed. It determined that amendment would be futile and dismissed the claim without leave to amend and without prejudice to filing a new action after proper exhaustion.
The court dismissed the access-to-the-courts claim with prejudice. It held that Harris did not identify an actual injury—such as being prevented from bringing or pursuing a non-frivolous legal claim. It also held that prisoners do not have a constitutional right to a particular grievance procedure, including the expedited procedure Harris sought. The court further found that the records showed officials responded to his grievances, explained their decisions, and identified the next steps for challenging them.
Other Dispositions
The court denied Harris’s third request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. It applied the standard requiring a showing of likely success, likely irreparable harm, favorable balancing of the equities, and consistency with the public interest. Because the claims failed and Harris had not shown the required likelihood of success, the court denied the request.
The court denied Harris’s request to proceed without prepaying filing fees as moot because it dismissed the action. The court ordered the file closed and certified that any appeal was not taken in good faith. The order stated that the action was dismissed without leave to amend, while preserving Harris’s ability to file a new action raising the education and housing claims after exhaustion.
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.