Simmons v. California Correctional Health Care Services

Background

Melvin Joseph Simmons filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. The court had previously screened his complaint and first amended complaint under the statutes requiring review of prisoner filings. The court dismissed some claims with leave to amend, dismissed other claims without leave to amend, and dismissed defendants who were not personally involved in the alleged wrongdoing.

Simmons then filed two motions: a motion seeking vindication of his civil rights in connection with California Civil Code § 3412, and a motion seeking relief from the screening order. The motions were filed by his daughter, Chamel Simmons, acting as his “next friend.” The court held that this was not permitted and directed that future filings come from Simmons or from an attorney he hired. The court also said the Clerk should strike future filings from Chamel Simmons.

Rulings on the Claims

Conviction and alleged over-detention. Simmons claimed that he should have been released on March 18, 2001, and had been held too long. The court had previously dismissed these claims because relief from the parole-related decisions had to be pursued in a habeas action, and a damages claim was barred by the rule described in the opinion as the Heck bar. In the new motion, Simmons sought to cancel an abstract of judgment and commitment form. The court held that this action was the wrong vehicle and was filed in the wrong court. The claims related to his conviction and alleged over-detention remained dismissed without leave to amend, but the court stated that this was without prejudice to filing the proper action in the proper court. Because the conviction occurred in Los Angeles County Superior Court, the court stated that the proper action had to be filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Property claims. Simmons alleged that real estate placed in a trust or similar arrangement in 1966 was taken by California in 1987. He characterized the alleged taking as fraudulent conversion or eminent domain. The court had rejected these claims as time-barred. It also rejected Simmons’s argument that discovering facts in 2018 restarted the limitations period, explaining that he had access to the relevant conviction documents for approximately three decades. The property-loss claims remained dismissed without leave to amend.

Transfer claims. Simmons alleged that transfers to San Quentin State Prison and Pelican Bay placed him at risk of contracting COVID-19 or being physically assaulted by enemies. He did not allege that he contracted COVID-19 or was assaulted. The court had rejected these claims because he alleged no injury that could be redressed and therefore lacked standing. The new motions identified no harm from the transfers, so the transfer-related claims remained dismissed without leave to amend.

Claims that could still be amended. Simmons alleged that Nurses Garcia and Justus falsely told custody staff that he was homicidal and delusional, leading to 24-hour observation while nude and under bright lights. The court had dismissed his informational-privacy claims without leave to amend but had allowed him to amend claims concerning the conditions of observation. Because his new motion supplied no additional facts sufficient to support those claims, the court gave him one final chance to amend them. The court stated that if he again failed to provide enough facts, those claims would be dismissed with prejudice.

Simmons also alleged that Sergeant Mereno, Correctional Officer A. Tidwell, and other unidentified Pelican Bay correctional officers tackled, restrained, struck, and suffocated him with a spit mask. The court treated these allegations as an attempted excessive-force claim and had allowed amendment to allege that the force was not used in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline. Because the new motion supplied no necessary supporting facts, the court gave him one final chance to amend this claim as well and stated that failure to do so would result in dismissal with prejudice.

Recusal request

Simmons suggested that the judge was biased, including because of the judge’s race, and implicitly sought recusal. The court explained that adverse rulings alone do not establish a basis for recusal and that Simmons had identified no evidence of bias beyond the earlier adverse ruling. The court denied the implied request for recusal without prejudice to Simmons filing a formal motion supported by proper evidence.

Disposition and amendment schedule

The court denied Simmons’s vindication and reconsideration motions. It permitted a second amended complaint asserting only the specified Fourth Amendment and Eighth Amendment claims concerning nude and brightly lit suicide observation and the alleged attack by correctional officers. All other defendants and claims remained dismissed without leave to amend. The court stated that Simmons himself, rather than his “next friend,” had to file the second amended complaint, and warned that failure to file it by the deadline would result in dismissal of the action. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 22 and 23.