Diggs v. Clenindimd

Background

Michael Laroy Diggs, who was representing himself, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The remaining claim alleged that Cindy Black, an executive director at Napa State Hospital, and Amy Davis, a substance-abuse recovery coordinator there, violated his First Amendment rights by forcing him to attend a religious treatment program.

Diggs was housed at Napa State Hospital from February 2017 through September 2019 after being referred there for treatment. He was placed in the Intensive Substance Recovery Unit, which treated patients with mental illness and substance-dependence disorders. Diggs alleged that moving through the unit’s treatment levels required participation in Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, or similar meetings with religious components, including a requirement to express belief in God. He said he attended 35 such meetings from February through July 2017, then refused to attend and was not advanced to the discharge level.

Disputed Evidence

The defendants argued that attendance at the religiously based meetings was not mandatory because a secular alternative, SMART Recovery, was available. They said Diggs was informed about SMART Recovery when he entered the unit and was directed to that program after raising religious objections.

Diggs disputed those assertions. He said he was not given the opportunity to attend SMART Recovery until October 2017 and was not told about a secular alternative when he entered the unit. He relied on a 2016 orientation packet stating that all patients were required to attend 12-step meetings, a worksheet requiring attendance at AA or NA meetings, and logs that listed AA, NA, DRA, and MA but did not list SMART Recovery.

The court found a genuine dispute over whether SMART Recovery was available to Diggs between February and September 2017. The defendants’ declaration generally stated that patients received information about available programs, but it did not identify a document conveying that information or say that the declarant personally saw it conveyed. The court also noted that SMART Recovery was offered at an off-unit mall site, while the orientation packet indicated that only Level III patients had mall access. These facts could support Diggs’s position that he could not access the secular program while he was at lower treatment levels.

Ruling

The court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a ruling without a trial that is proper only when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over an important fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Applying that standard, the court held that the dispute over access to a secular alternative prevented judgment for the defendants on Diggs’s First Amendment claim.

The court also denied summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Qualified immunity can protect government officials from liability when the law did not clearly establish that their conduct was unlawful. The court concluded that the defendants had not conclusively shown that SMART Recovery was available to Diggs, and that unresolved fact was central to their qualified-immunity argument.

The court denied the defendants’ request for judicial notice of documents concerning Diggs’s criminal record and sentence. It referred the action to the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program and directed Diggs to attend and participate in mediation or settlement proceedings. The opinion states that failure to comply could lead to sanctions, including dismissal of part or all of the action.