Lees v. CDCR/SVSP-LVN Singsong

Background

Alexander Lees, a California inmate serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole, brought this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He sued Salinas Valley State Prison officers Hogeland, Ponce, and Mariscal. Lees alleged that the officers used excessive force against him in violation of the Eighth Amendment and violated due process by falsely accusing him of assaulting staff members.

The dispute arose after Lees fought with another inmate. The officers said Lees resisted while they tried to move him from a wheelchair into a gym holding cell, struck Ponce, kicked Mariscal, and had to be taken to the ground. Lees said he was suffering severe back spasms and leg cramps, was claustrophobic, and was beaten after refusing to enter the small cell. Inmate Gray told an investigator that he did not see Lees resist, elbow, kick, or struggle with an officer, although he heard an officer yell, “Stop, you’re elbowing me.”

Excessive-Force Claim

For an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim, the court considered whether the force was used in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or instead was used maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. The court concluded that the conflicting accounts created a genuine dispute of material fact about whether Lees was restrained and compliant or was resisting and attacking the officers.

Because summary judgment does not permit the court to decide witness credibility, the court viewed the evidence in Lees’s favor. If Lees’s account were accepted, a reasonable jury could find that the force was malicious and sadistic. The court therefore denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the excessive-force claim. It also ruled that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity on that claim at this stage because the disputed facts could show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Due Process Claim

Lees alleged that the officers falsely reported that he assaulted them, leading to a disciplinary charge and a loss of 150 days of credits and several privileges for 90 days. The court held that the temporary loss of privileges was not an atypical and significant hardship creating a protected liberty interest. It also held that the loss of credits did not create such an interest for an inmate serving life without the possibility of parole and did not affect the duration of his sentence.

The court further stated that, even if Lees had a protected liberty interest, the record showed that he received the procedural protections required for a prison disciplinary proceeding, including notice, an opportunity to prepare, the ability to present evidence and ask questions, and a decision supported by some evidence. The court therefore granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the due process claim. Because it found no due process violation, it did not need to conduct any further qualified-immunity analysis for that claim.

Other Rulings and Case Status

The court granted the defendants’ motion to seal a confidential supplement to Lees’s prison grievance because disclosure could create safety risks for the prison, staff, inmates, and people who cooperated with the investigation. The document was ordered to remain sealed through the case and any appellate proceedings.

Overall, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment: it granted the motion on the due process claim and denied it on the excessive-force claim. The court referred the remaining excessive-force claim to a magistrate judge for settlement proceedings under the prisoner mediation program. It stayed further proceedings and administratively closed the case while settlement was pursued, stating that it would issue a new scheduling order if the case was not settled.