Brasuell v. Ashley

Background

Jess D. Brasuell, a state prisoner incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed a civil-rights action without a lawyer against prison officials. He alleged that officials violated his federal and constitutional rights. The court had screened his original, first amended, and second amended complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and dismissed them with permission to amend.

On November 29, 2022, the court dismissed the case and entered judgment for the defendants, while allowing Brasuell to seek reopening by filing a motion accompanied by a corrected Third Amended Complaint. Brasuell later filed a motion to appoint counsel, a Third Amended Complaint, and a Fourth Amended Complaint. The court treated his filing as a request to reopen the case.

Claims and Screening Analysis

Brasuell alleged that he has a disability and had received accommodations from the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court in his criminal proceedings, including use of a laptop with word-processing capability and electronic discovery. He alleged that prison officials refused to provide the same accommodation. He also alleged that officials interfered with his ability to access the courts and that interference with his mail caused him to miss court deadlines.

The court concluded that, when his allegations were read liberally, Brasuell stated a cognizable claim under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act against Warden M. Atchley in his official capacity. The court explained that the remaining defendants were not proper defendants for that claim because Title II rights cannot be enforced through a civil-rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a state official in the official’s individual capacity.

The court also concluded that Brasuell stated a cognizable § 1983 claim for denial of access to the courts against Warden Trent Allen, Captain Pennesi, Counselor Pisano, law librarian Heffington, and ADA coordinator Mojica. The court stated that a prisoner pursuing this type of claim must show that an inadequacy in the prison’s legal-access program caused actual injury and hindered a nonfrivolous claim concerning the prisoner’s conviction or confinement. The court found that Brasuell had alleged that these defendants hindered his court access and affected his legal efforts.

Brasuell also made allegations concerning being told that there was no record of an earlier attack, officials’ failure to take his safety concerns seriously, and conduct by Dr. Kane that he described as a threat or chilling effect. He requested therapy by video with a different practitioner. The court ruled that these allegations did not belong in the same lawsuit because they did not arise from the same transaction or occurrence, or involve common legal or factual questions, as the disability and court-access claims. The court also stated that the unidentified defendants had to be dismissed because Brasuell had not alleged specific facts showing what each one did.

Rulings

The court vacated the prior judgment and reopened the case because Brasuell had adequately addressed the deficiencies identified in his earlier complaints. It struck the Fourth Amended Complaint because the court had granted permission only to file the Third Amended Complaint. The court ordered service of the operative Third Amended Complaint on M. Atchley in his official capacity, Trent Allen, Captain Pennesi, Counselor Pisano, law librarian Heffington, and ADA coordinator Mojica through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic service program.

The court dismissed Interim Warden Lemmon, Psychological Therapist Dr. Kane, Counselor Werner, and Does 1 through 10. The order set deadlines and procedures for service, answers, dispositive motions, opposition and reply briefs, discovery, and communications with the court.

Appointment of Counsel

Brasuell requested appointed counsel for the fifth time, citing his imprisonment, the complexity of the issues, limited law-library access, and limited legal knowledge. The court explained that civil litigants generally have no right to appointed counsel, although counsel may be appointed in exceptional circumstances. It found that Brasuell’s likelihood of success was low at that stage and that the legal issues were not unusually complex. Judge Trina L. Thompson therefore denied the motion for appointment of counsel, without prejudice to the court appointing counsel later if circumstances warranted it.