Hamilton

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his complaint on October 1, 2014. The complaint reveals that, after plaintiff had been occupying a lower bunk for some time, his primary care provider determined that he presented no evidence of any mobility impairment that required a

1 lower bunk. A medical committee determined that plaintiff no longer met the criteria for a lower bunk authorization, which the prison refers to as a “chrono.” Consistent with San Quentin operating policy and state guidelines, the medical committee determined that plaintiff did not have a medical need for a low bunk.1 The committee noted that although plaintiff’s age made him potentially eligible for a lower bunk accommodation, age alone did not guarantee him a lower bunk. The committee further remarked that even though plaintiff was not entitled to a mandatory lower bunk assignment he was currently housed on a low bunk. The committee advised plaintiff that his medical condition would continue to be monitored with care. Plaintiff did not allege any physical injuries associated with the refusal to grant him a permanent lower bunk accommodation. The complaint, instead, alleges that plaintiff has suffered “many sleepless…