(PC) Wilkins v. Gipson
2:19-cv-01469-DAD-CKD
| E.D. Cal. | Apr 10, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Keenan Wilkins, a state prisoner previously designated a three-strikes litigant, was allowed to proceed IFP based on imminent danger allegations.
- FAC challenges the 2019 removal of his single-cell housing status at California Health Care Facility; prior reviews in 2016 recommended single-cell placement for six months.
- On June 27, 2019 Dr. M. Smith documented that Wilkins was "no longer eligible for single cell." An August 8, 2019 ICC report (attached to the FAC) cleared Wilkins for double-cell/dorm housing, citing the mental-health recommendation and other custody factors.
- Wilkins alleges First Amendment retaliation (Smith, Miller, Heslop, Sanchez), Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to his safety given his mental illness, and due-process/equal-protection violations arising from the ICC decision.
- The court screened the FAC, found the retaliation claim contradicted by the ICC report and insufficiently pleaded, ruled the Eighth Amendment allegations too vague to show objective/subjective Farmer standards, rejected the procedural/equal-protection claims, dismissed the FAC for failure to state a claim, and granted leave to file a second amended complaint with instructions about specificity and linkage to each defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment retaliation for removal of single-cell status | Wilkins alleges defendants removed single-cell status in retaliation for his lawsuit and complaints | ICC record shows change followed mental-health recommendation and custody factors; action served legitimate correctional goals | Dismissed — plaintiff failed to plead absence of legitimate correctional goals; ICC report undermines retaliation inference |
| Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to safety from double-celling | Wilkins claims double-celling posed serious risk given his mental illness and past staff assault complaint | Double-celling is not per se unconstitutional; FAC lacks factual detail to satisfy objective risk and defendant knowledge (Farmer) | Dismissed — allegations too vague/conclusory to meet objective and subjective prongs |
| Due process / equal protection re: ICC housing decision | Wilkins contends ICC deprived him of process and treated him differently | Housing/classification decisions generally do not implicate federal liberty interests; no allegation of purposeful disparate treatment of a protected class | Dismissed — no protected-class discrimination alleged and no protected liberty interest shown |
| Pleading sufficiency & linkage for § 1983 liability | Wilkins relies on prior pleadings and general allegations against multiple staff | Court requires specific factual allegations showing each defendant's affirmative link to deprivation; amended complaint must be complete and specific | Dismissed with leave to amend — court explained pleading requirements and gave 30 days to file a second amended complaint |
Key Cases Cited
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (frivolous-claim standard)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (conclusory allegations insufficient)
- Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 (9th Cir. 2005) (prisoner retaliation elements)
- Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 1995) (retaliation claims require absence of legitimate correctional goals)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference objective and subjective prongs)
- Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981) (double-celling not per se Eighth Amendment violation)
- Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2014) (applying Farmer in prison-conditions context)
- Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976) (§ 1983 requires affirmative link between official and deprivation)
- Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266 (9th Cir. 1982) (vague and conclusory allegations insufficient)