Jacques v. Delgado

Background

Michael E. Jacques, a California prisoner representing herself, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Y. Delgado, an official at Salinas Valley State Prison. The complaint alleged that Delgado retaliated against Jacques for filing administrative grievances and caused a delay in Jacques’s receipt of medication. A separate order granted Jacques permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Screening and claims

Because Jacques is a prisoner suing a government official, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court had to identify claims that could proceed and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also applied the rule requiring a complaint to provide enough factual information to give the defendant fair notice of the claim and its basis.

The court explained that a claim under § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federal constitutional or legal right by a person acting under state law. Construing Jacques’s allegations liberally, the court found a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim based on the allegation that Delgado retaliated against Jacques for filing administrative grievances.

The court rejected the Eighth Amendment claim concerning the medication delay. It stated that Jacques did not allege that the delay caused harm, and that a harmless treatment delay does not support an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim.

Disposition

The court dismissed Jacques’s Eighth Amendment claim for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. It found the First Amendment retaliation claim cognizable and ordered that Defendant Correctional Officer Y. Delgado be served through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service process, or through the United States Marshals Service if necessary.

The order required Delgado to file an answer and, no later than 91 days after the order was filed, a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion, unless Delgado informed the court that summary judgment was not appropriate. It also set deadlines for any opposition and reply. Discovery could proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Jacques was reminded of her responsibilities to prosecute the case, comply with court orders, and keep the court informed of any address change.