Thomas v. Pashilk

Background

Hilbert Thomas, a California prisoner proceeding without an attorney, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against correctional officer R. Pashilk and other San Quentin officials. Thomas alleged that Pashilk opened his incoming legal mail outside Thomas’s presence. A prior order found that allegation sufficient to state a claim against Pashilk. Thomas then filed an amended complaint adding Warden Oak Smith, Captain E. Sanders, Captain E. Patao, Lieutenant R. Feston, Lieutenant D. Campbell, and L. Bravo as defendants.

Pashilk moved to vacate the earlier Order of Service and asked the court to screen the amended complaint. Thomas opposed the motion. Thomas also moved for appointment of counsel.

Screening of the Amended Complaint

The court explained that federal law requires preliminary screening of a prisoner’s complaint against a government officer or entity. The court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a legally sufficient claim. The court also said that pleadings filed without a lawyer must be read liberally.

The court found that Thomas’s allegations against Pashilk stated a valid constitutional claim based on the opening of his legal mail outside his presence.

Thomas alleged that Patao issued him a Rules Violation Report after contraband was found in the legal mail, Feston found him guilty at a disciplinary hearing, and Bravo ordered a new hearing after an appeal identified due-process violations. Thomas alleged that Campbell presided over the new hearing and found him guilty, and that another appeal found Campbell had violated prison hearing regulations. Bravo then ordered another hearing, at which a different official found Thomas not guilty.

The court found that, when liberally construed, these allegations stated a claim against Feston and Campbell for violating Thomas’s due-process rights during disciplinary hearings. The court found no due-process violation alleged against Patao or Bravo because due process did not prohibit issuing a Rules Violation Report or ordering a new disciplinary hearing after a prisoner succeeded on appeal. The court also found that Thomas alleged no conduct by Sanders and that his allegation that Smith was responsible for Thomas’s custody, training, treatment, and discipline did not plausibly establish liability. The court explained that § 1983 does not impose liability on a supervisor merely because of the supervisor’s responsibility for subordinates.

Rulings

The court held that Thomas was allowed to amend his complaint once as a matter of course because he filed the amended complaint before Pashilk served the original complaint. The amended complaint therefore replaced the original complaint, and the court screened the amended complaint. Pashilk’s motion to vacate was GRANTED IN PART.

The claims against Oak Smith, E. Sanders, E. Patao, and L. Bravo were DISMISSED with leave to amend. Thomas was permitted to file a second amended complaint by August 26, 2022. The court instructed him to include all claims he wished to pursue, including the claims against Pashilk, Feston, and Campbell that the court found cognizable. If he did not amend as required, the amended complaint would remain the operative complaint and the case would proceed only against Pashilk, Feston, and Campbell.

Thomas’s motions for appointment of counsel were DENIED. The court concluded that appointment was not required at that stage because Thomas had shown he could pursue his claims adequately. The order stated that the case could later be referred to a federal pro bono project if a trial or other circumstances warranted an attorney.

Disposition

The order disposed of docket numbers 10, 17, 24, and 28. It did not enter a final ruling on all of Thomas’s underlying claims; some claims remained eligible to proceed and some were dismissed with leave to amend.