Sauls v. Balli

Background

David L. Sauls, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a second amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that prison officials at CTF-Soledad violated his constitutional rights. The court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires preliminary screening of a prisoner’s claims against governmental entities or officials. The court had previously dismissed Sauls’s earlier complaints with permission to amend.

Sauls alleged that in 2020 Lieutenant S. Balli recruited and conspired with prisoners to call Sauls a “snitch” and physically harm him. Sauls also alleged that Balli acted with the approval of his supervisor, Sergeant J. Crews.

Screening ruling

The court concluded that Sauls stated cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against Balli and Crews. It ordered the clerk to issue summonses and directed service of the operative complaint on those defendants. Balli and Crews were ordered to respond to the claims found cognizable.

The court dismissed all other claims and defendants. It dismissed Sauls’s allegations against grievance reviewer Howard Moseley without leave to amend, explaining that merely reviewing an inmate grievance does not necessarily cause or contribute to the underlying violation. It dismissed Sauls’s retaliation and television-seizure allegations because they did not connect those allegations to any person’s actions.

The court dismissed the allegations against the warden with leave to amend. It stated that Sauls could pursue that claim by filing a third amended complaint naming the warden of Soledad in 2020 and including all claims and defendants he wished to pursue. The deadline stated for that amended complaint was July 17, 2024.

Appointment of counsel

Sauls moved for appointment of counsel. The court explained that appointment is reserved for exceptional circumstances and considered Sauls’s ability to present his claims and the complexity of the case. It found that Sauls’s filings were clear and that the case did not present complex legal issues. The court therefore denied the motion for appointment of counsel, while stating that it could reconsider the need for counsel later if circumstances warranted.

Next steps ordered by the court

The court directed Balli and Crews to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion concerning the cognizable claims by September 23, 2024. If they sought dismissal based on failure to exhaust available administrative remedies, the court directed them to raise that issue in a summary-judgment motion. The court also set procedures for opposition and reply filings and stated that no hearing would be held unless later ordered.

The clerk was directed to terminate all defendants except Balli and Crews and to terminate all pending motions. The order did not decide whether Sauls would ultimately prevail on the Eighth Amendment claims.