Sauls v. Balli

Background

David L. Sauls, proceeding without a lawyer, sued prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that officials at CTF-Soledad violated his federal constitutional rights by failing to protect prisoners from COVID-19, failing to respond properly to emergency grievances about his medical condition, losing an emergency grievance, retaliating against him and endangering him through conduct related to a transfer of prisoners to Corcoran State Prison, and losing his television during his transfer.

The court reviewed the complaint under the statute requiring preliminary screening of prisoner lawsuits against government entities, officers, or employees. At this stage, the court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. To state a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal right and conduct by a person acting under state authority.

Claims

The court dismissed Claim 1, concerning COVID-19 protections. It held that Sauls’s generalized and conclusory allegations that prison officials failed to do enough to control COVID-19 were insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim.

The court dismissed Claims 2 and 3, concerning the failure to respond promptly to a grievance and the loss of a grievance. It explained that prisoners do not have a constitutional right to a prison administrative appeal or grievance system, so these allegations did not establish a due-process violation.

The court dismissed Claim 4, concerning retaliation and endangerment, with leave to amend. Sauls had referred to correctional officers 7 through 12 and called them unnamed defendants, but he had not named the people who allegedly called him a snitch or arranged the transfer of prisoners to Corcoran. The court required him to name those individuals or provide enough identifying information to allow service of the complaint.

The court dismissed Claim 5, concerning the loss of Sauls’s television during his transfer. It held that a random and unauthorized negligent or intentional loss of property does not support a § 1983 claim when an adequate state remedy is available. The court found that California provides such a remedy for property deprivations.

Appointment of Counsel

Sauls also asked the court to appoint a lawyer. The court explained that appointment is reserved for exceptional circumstances, considering the likelihood of success and the person’s ability to present the claims in light of their legal complexity. It found no exceptional circumstances because Sauls’s filings were clear and the case did not present complex legal issues. The motion for appointment of counsel was denied, although the court said it could reconsider the issue later if circumstances warranted.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to file an amended complaint by June 26, 2023. The amended complaint had to include all claims and defendants Sauls wished to pursue and could not incorporate the earlier complaint by reference. The court warned that failure to file a proper amended complaint by that date might result in dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute. The motion for appointment of counsel was denied, and the clerk was directed to terminate the motion docket entry.