Dixon v. Partida

Background

Bruce M. Dixon, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP), filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court reviewed the complaint under the prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Dixon had separately been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Dixon alleged that he was medically classified as high risk, had mobility impairments, and had been prescribed Clozaril. A medical record required that he be endorsed to a prison capable of prescribing and monitoring Clozaril. Dixon alleged that SVSP was not such a facility, that he experienced blurred vision, headaches, a spinning sensation, and other side effects, and that SVSP could not always maintain a regular supply of the medication.

According to the complaint, prison medical professionals and classification committees recommended or approved Dixon’s transfer to a Clozaril maintenance prison. Dixon alleged that Mondragon, Curiel, Gaither, Borla, Solis, and a Doe classification-services auditor blocked the transfer; that Gamboa, Clark, and Foss failed to arrange it; and that Partida endorsed his placement at SVSP despite knowing it was not a Clozaril maintenance prison. He also alleged that officials treated him differently from other inmates taking Clozaril and that Partida violated due process by endorsing his housing without committee approval.

Screening Rulings

The court held that, liberally construed, the complaint stated cognizable claims against Mondragon, Curiel, Gaither, Borla, Solis, Partida, Gamboa, Clark, and Foss for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment and for violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The court explained that a deliberate-indifference claim requires an official to know of and disregard an excessive risk to the inmate’s health or safety. It also recognized Dixon’s alleged equal-protection theory as a possible “class of one” claim based on intentional different treatment without a rational basis.

The court held that Dixon did not state a due-process claim against Partida. A violation of a prison regulation requiring committee approval did not, by itself, implicate the Due Process Clause, and § 1983 does not provide a remedy for violations of state law or prison policy. The due-process claim against Partida was DISMISSED with prejudice because the defect could not be cured by alleging additional facts.

The court DISMISSED the Doe defendants from the action without prejudice because anonymous defendants generally cannot be served. It stated that Dixon could use discovery to learn their identities and then request permission to amend the complaint to name them. The court ordered service on the listed named defendants, including Mondragon, Gamboa, Partida, Borla, Solis, Curiel, Gaither, Clark, and Foss.

Transfer Request and Order to Show Cause

Dixon requested an immediate transfer to a Clozaril maintenance prison. The court construed that request as seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. A preliminary injunction is an early court order intended to prevent likely harm while a case continues.

The court found that Dixon had shown a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm, that the balance of hardships sharply favored him, and that an injunction was in the public interest. The court relied on medical records, recommendations by prison mental-health professionals, classification-committee referrals, and SVSP’s grant of a grievance requesting transfer. The court found that the record supported Dixon’s claim that defendants knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm but failed to take reasonable steps to reduce it.

The court did not immediately order the transfer. Instead, it ORDERED DEFENDANTS TO SHOW CAUSE by September 23, 2022, why they and persons acting under their control should not be ordered to transfer Dixon to a Clozaril maintenance prison. Dixon was required to respond to the defendants’ answer by October 7, 2022. Because of Dixon’s indigent status, the court waived any bond that might otherwise be required for preliminary relief.

Further Case Management

The court ordered defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion within 91 days of the order. It also set deadlines for Dixon’s opposition and defendants’ reply, authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and advised Dixon about the evidence required to oppose summary judgment. The order did not decide the ultimate merits of the surviving claims.