Van Buren v. Gee

Background

Irvin Van Buren alleged that his imprisonment violated his Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He was arrested in 1991, convicted of several offenses in 1993, and sentenced to 15 years to life for second-degree murder under California’s natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine.

California later changed its murder law. Senate Bill 1437, effective January 1, 2019, changed the felony-murder and natural-and-probable-consequences rules and created a procedure for people convicted of murder to seek resentencing. While Van Buren was held at Salinas Valley State Prison in 2020, he told Correctional Counselor S. Gee and Institutional Classification Committee Chairperson M. Atchley that he believed he was falsely imprisoned under Senate Bill 1437. He also filed a prison grievance. The opinion states that a San Francisco Superior Court later released him from prison after he pursued relief under the law.

Van Buren sued current or former California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation employees and Dan Lundgren, who was California Attorney General in 1993. He sought damages for alleged violations of due process and the protection against cruel and unusual punishment. The defendants who filed the motion were K. Allison, M. Atchley, T. Lemon, S. Gee, and T. Allen.

Claims and arguments

Van Buren alleged that the defendants unlawfully kept him imprisoned for nearly 30 years under a statute he claimed was invalid and unconstitutional. He also alleged that the natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine did not adequately explain the criminal offense, its elements, or the punishment.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. They argued that California prison officials lacked authority to resentence or release Van Buren under Senate Bill 1437; that the defendants who acted in 1993 could not have violated his rights based on a law that changed in 2019; and that claims against officials in their official capacities were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. They also argued that Lemon’s alleged role in signing a grievance denial was insufficient and that Van Buren did not adequately allege personal involvement by Allison or Atchley.

Court’s analysis

Official-capacity claims. Van Buren sued Gee, Atchley, Allen, and Allison in their official capacities. The court held that the Eleventh Amendment generally protects states and state officials sued in their official capacities from damages claims. The exception for prospective relief from an ongoing violation did not apply because Van Buren had been released and sought only damages. The motion to dismiss these official-capacity claims was granted without leave to amend.

1993 defendants. Van Buren sued two John Doe defendants who allegedly held positions at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in 1993, as well as Lundgren. The court held that these defendants could not have violated Van Buren’s constitutional rights by prosecuting or imprisoning him under the natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine in 1993 based on Senate Bill 1437’s later change to California law. The motion to dismiss the claims against the 1993 defendants in their individual capacities was granted without leave to amend.

Recent California prison officials. The court relied on Ninth Circuit precedent stating that prison officials must enforce a sentencing order until a court vacates it or the prisoner otherwise becomes eligible for release. Because Senate Bill 1437 required a person to petition a court for resentencing, the court held that the recent California prison officials were entitled to rely on Van Buren’s 1993 sentencing order until a later court order vacated it. Their continued imprisonment of Van Buren while that order remained in force therefore did not violate his constitutional rights.

The court separately held that Van Buren failed to allege personal involvement by Allen and Allison. It also held that, to the extent his claim against Lemon was based on Lemon’s signing the denial of Van Buren’s first- and second-level grievance appeals, that allegation did not state a claim under the federal civil-rights statute.

The court considered Van Buren’s argument that the officials were deliberately indifferent to his liberty interests by failing to help him obtain resentencing or release. It concluded that Van Buren had not shown that the officials’ actions amounted to deliberate indifference. The court noted that the resentencing statute did not suggest that prison officials had a role in the petition process and that Van Buren identified no case treating a failure to recommend resentencing as deliberate indifference.

Disposition

The court concluded that Van Buren failed to state a claim against any of the recent California prison officials. Because he had already amended his complaint twice and the identified problems could not be cured, the motion to dismiss those defendants in their individual capacities was granted without leave to amend. The court’s final order states: “The motion to dismiss is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.”