Susan Polk v. Godina
692 F. App'x 924
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Susan Mae Polk, a California state prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 raising multiple constitutional claims; the district court dismissed her second amended complaint and assessed a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
- Polk proceeded pro se on appeal from the district court’s dismissal; the Ninth Circuit reviews de novo dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
- Polk alleged First Amendment retaliation, denial of access-to-courts, a § 1983 conspiracy, deprivation of property by a defendant Stockton (due process), Eighth Amendment denial of food, and deliberate indifference claims against prison officials including Cate and Cate’s successor.
- The district court denied Polk leave to amend after two prior amendments and denied certain procedural motions; Polk challenged those rulings on appeal.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding Polk’s pleadings failed to state plausible claims across the theories raised and that several procedural rulings were within the district court’s discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment retaliation | Polk alleged officials retaliated for protected conduct | Defendants acted for legitimate correctional reasons and did not cause adverse chilling harm | Dismissed: Polk failed to plead adverse action, harm/chill, or lack of legitimate penological purpose (Watison standard) |
| Access-to-courts | Polk alleged deprivation impeded her litigation | Defendants argued no actual injury to litigation | Dismissed: Polk did not allege actual injury required for claim (Christopher standard) |
| § 1983 conspiracy | Polk alleged a conspiracy to deprive rights | Defendants denied any resulting constitutional deprivation | Dismissed: No facts showing actual deprivation from conspiracy (Woodrum) |
| Due process — property deprivation (Stockton) | Polk alleged Stockton deprived her property without due process | Defendants asserted state post-deprivation remedies are adequate | Dismissed: California law provides adequate post-deprivation remedy (Barnett) |
| Eighth Amendment — food deprivation | Polk claimed unnamed officials deprived her of food | Defendants argued alleged deprivation not sufficiently serious | Dismissed: Allegations insufficient to show serious deprivation (LeMaire; Hebbe) |
| Deliberate indifference — supervisory liability (Cate successor) | Polk sought liability for successor based on prior deliberate indifference by Cate | Defendants argued lack of personal involvement and Eleventh Amendment limits | Dismissed: Supervisor liability requires personal involvement; Eleventh Amendment bars official-capacity relief (Starr; Aholelei) |
| Denial of leave to amend / § 1915(g) strike | Polk argued district court abused discretion and should have allowed amendment or not assessed a strike | Defendants argued district court properly exercised discretion after prior amendments | Affirmed: Court appropriately denied further amendment and assessed a strike (Chodos; §1915(g)) |
| Miscellaneous procedural claims (bias, due process, extensions, joinder) | Polk alleged magistrate bias, due process violations, denial of extension, and joinder errors | Defendants defended procedural rulings as discretionary and supported by record | Rejected: Appellate court found no support in record; declined to consider issues raised for first time on appeal (Padgett) |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for §1915A dismissal)
- Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 2008) (appellate affirmance may rest on any record-supported basis)
- Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2012) (elements of First Amendment retaliation claim in prison context)
- Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir. 2010) (pro se pleadings must still state plausible claims)
- Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403 (U.S. 2002) (actual-injury requirement for access-to-courts claims)
- Woodrum v. Woodward County, Okla., 866 F.2d 1121 (9th Cir. 1989) (elements of § 1983 conspiracy claim)
- Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 1994) (California provides adequate post-deprivation remedies for property loss)
- LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444 (9th Cir. 1993) (Eighth Amendment requires food adequate to maintain health)
- Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2011) (supervisory liability requires personal involvement)
- Aholelei v. Dep’t of Public Safety, 488 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2007) (Eleventh Amendment bars suits against state officials in official capacity)
- Chodos v. West Publ’g Co., 292 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2002) (district court broad discretion to deny further amendments after leave granted)
- Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) (appellate court will not consider issues not raised in opening brief)