(PC) Sekona v. Custino
2:16-cv-00517-TLN-DMC
E.D. Cal.Feb 3, 2017Background
- Plaintiff, a California prisoner, alleges he was ordered on June 27, 2014 to move into cell 142 despite warning that the assigned cellmate (inmate Loveday) would harm him.
- Plaintiff claims the move was a setup by gang members and a porter, and that Loveday warned staff (including Custino) he would not get along with plaintiff; later Loveday allegedly attacked and severely injured plaintiff.
- Plaintiff names four defendants: Custino (floor officer who ordered the move), Angle (role unspecified), Snow (investigative officer who allegedly refused plaintiff’s witnesses at a disciplinary hearing), and Charon (senior hearing officer who denied counsel/staff assistance).
- The court screened the pro se § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found a cognizable Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against Custino and a cognizable due-process claim against Snow.
- The court found plaintiff failed to state claims against Angle (insufficient connection/allegations) and Charon (no showing that counsel/staff assistance was required), dismissed those claims but granted leave to amend as to Angle; plaintiff has 30 days to file an amended complaint.
- The court denied plaintiff’s motion asking the U.S. Marshal to effect service of process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eighth Amendment failure to protect (Custino) | Custino ordered plaintiff into a cell with a known dangerous cellmate despite warnings, causing serious injury | (Not detailed in screening order) | Claim against Custino is cognizable; survives screening. |
| Due process at disciplinary hearing (Snow) | Snow refused to allow plaintiff to call witnesses at disciplinary hearing | (Not detailed) | Due-process claim against Snow is cognizable at screening. |
| Liability of Angle for cell move | Angle participated in or caused the move that led to assault | Complaint fails to allege any specific acts or causal link by Angle | Dismissed for failure to state a claim; leave to amend allowed. |
| Denial of counsel/staff assistance at hearing (Charon) | Charon refused staff assistance/counsel at disciplinary hearing | Charon contends procedures met or assistance not required | Dismissed: plaintiff did not allege illiteracy or complexity requiring assistance; defects appear incurable. |
Key Cases Cited
- McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir.) (Rule 8 requires short, plain statement; claims must be simple and direct)
- Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir.) (complaint gives defendant fair notice of claim and grounds)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court) (§ 1983 liability requires connection between policy/actor and deprivation)
- Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court) (liability requires causal link between official action and constitutional deprivation)
- Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740 (9th Cir.) (personal participation or omission needed for § 1983 liability)
- Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266 (9th Cir.) (vague/conclusory allegations inadequate)
- Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628 (9th Cir.) (plaintiff must state specific facts linking each defendant to deprivation)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (Supreme Court) (minimum due-process protections in prison disciplinary hearings)
- Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415 (9th Cir.) (due process satisfied if Wolff’s minima met)
- Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (Supreme Court) (disciplinary decisions need only "some evidence")
- Blueford v. Prunty, 108 F.3d 251 (9th Cir.) (loss of good-time credits must be pursued via habeas, not § 1983)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. en banc) (pro se plaintiffs given leave to amend unless amendment would be futile)
- Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir.) (amended complaint supersedes original)
- May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164 (9th Cir.) (plaintiff must link each defendant to alleged conduct)