Scott v. LT Mccay

Background

James Scott, a prisoner housed at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed a lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court reviewed the complaint under the prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The complaint named Salinas Valley State Prison correctional officers lieutenant McCay and sergeant Dominguez as defendants.

Scott alleged that McCay deprived him of property on May 22, 2023, by falsely recording that Scott did not have hair clippers, even though Scott said he owned them and had a receipt. Scott also alleged that Dominguez lost his legal mail on May 31, 2023, by stating that he mailed it to a Modesto address different from the address Scott had written. Scott further alleged that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Office of Appeals reopened a grievance under a different log number. He requested one million dollars for the lost mail, property, replacement costs, and time lost without his legal work.

Reasons for Dismissal

The court identified several deficiencies:

- Improperly joined claims: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 permits claims against multiple defendants in one action when they arise from the same transaction, occurrence, or related series of events and share a common question of law or fact. The court found that the claim against McCay arose from a separate occurrence than the claim against Dominguez. It therefore stated that Scott must sue McCay and Dominguez in separate actions if he wishes to pursue both incidents. - No identified federal violation: The court stated that the complaint did not allege a violation of the federal Constitution or federal statutes, as required for a claim under § 1983. - Property claim: The court explained that, generally in California, a negligent or intentional loss of property that is random and unauthorized does not state a federal due-process claim under § 1983 when adequate state remedies are available. The court said that appeared to describe Scott’s property allegations. - Legal-mail claim: The court ruled that Scott had not alleged an actual injury required for a First Amendment access-to-the-courts claim. The court explained that an actual injury means actual prejudice to contemplated or existing litigation, such as being unable to meet a filing deadline or present a claim. Scott had not identified any actual injury caused by the lost legal mail.

Disposition

The court DISMISSED the complaint with leave to amend. It GRANTED Scott leave to file an amended complaint correcting the identified deficiencies. The court instructed him to pursue in one action only claims arising from the same transaction, occurrence, or related series of events that share a common question of law or fact. It also instructed him to briefly describe each alleged wrongful act, when it occurred, what happened, which defendant was involved, and what federal law or constitutional provision was violated.

Scott was given 28 days from the date of the order to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to use the caption and case number specified in the order and include the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. The court stated that an amended complaint would replace the earlier complaint and that failure to file one meeting the order’s requirements would result in dismissal of the action without further notice.