Harris v. Atchley

Background

Michael Jay Harris, proceeding without a lawyer and incarcerated in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, challenged a planned transfer from sensitive-needs housing at Salinas Valley State Prison to the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in Corcoran. Harris alleged that the receiving facility did not have sensitive-needs housing and that moving him to a non-designated yard would put his safety at risk. He also alleged that the transfer would interfere with his college courses, educational equality, ability to grieve prison problems, and access to the courts.

Harris requested permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, which the court had already granted in a separate order. He also requested a temporary restraining order preventing the transfer. The endorsement for the transfer expired on February 7, 2022, and Harris remained at Salinas Valley State Prison when this order was issued.

Screening of the Complaint

The court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires early review of a prisoner’s complaint against government entities or officials. The court concluded that Harris stated cognizable Eighth Amendment claims based on alleged deliberate indifference to his safety. For such a claim, a prisoner must allege a sufficiently serious risk and that an official knowingly disregarded that risk.

The court dismissed Harris’s education-related equal-protection claim with prejudice. It reasoned that his concern about being unable to continue summer and fall 2021 courses was moot because those terms had ended before he filed the complaint. The court also noted that the receiving facility allowed inmates to take college courses, so equal protection required reasonable opportunities for similar study, not identical programs at every prison.

The court dismissed Harris’s court-access claim with prejudice. In a prior related proceeding, No. 21-cv-6577-EMC, the court had dismissed the same claim on the merits and with prejudice. Applying claim preclusion, also called res judicata, the court held that the earlier judgment barred Harris from raising the same claim against the same defendants based on the same alleged conduct, even though an appeal from the earlier proceeding remained pending.

Temporary Restraining Order

The court denied Harris’s motion for a temporary restraining order. A temporary restraining order is emergency relief intended to prevent likely immediate and irreparable harm until the court can address longer-term injunctive relief. The court found that Harris had not shown that such harm was likely. The transfer endorsement had expired, making a future transfer possible rather than necessarily likely, and Harris had shown only that an attack at a non-designated facility was possible rather than likely.

The court nevertheless concluded, for screening purposes, that the Eighth Amendment claims were not moot. It found that a similar transfer endorsement could be issued at a future classification meeting and that this possibility was not speculative because Harris had previously been endorsed for transfer despite his safety objections.

Orders and Effect

The education and court-access claims were dismissed with prejudice. The defendants were required to respond to the Eighth Amendment safety claims. The order directed service on Kathleen Allison, M. Atchley, T. Vang, T. Lemon, and Capt. Wade, identified respectively as an executive at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and officials at Salinas Valley State Prison. The court also established deadlines for dispositive motions and responses and allowed discovery under the federal rules. Judge Edward M. Chen stated that the order disposed of the temporary-restraining-order motion.