Arocha v. Allen

Background

Rudy Arocha brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which permits claims for violations of federal rights by persons acting under state law. The court reviewed the complaint under the prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

Arocha alleged that prison officials at Pelican Bay State Prison recorded him engaging in non-consensual private sexual acts with another prisoner in 1993. He said the recording was used to label him falsely as gay and a sex offender. He also alleged that employees at Mule Creek State Prison recorded him during a strip search in 2005, leading to harassment and abuse, and that further harassment occurred at the Los Angeles County Jail in 2020.

Arocha alleged that, in 2021, he filed a Prison Rape Elimination Act complaint against a prisoner, identified as Barrios, for spreading false rumors about his sexuality. He said prison employees responded by fabricating sex-offender records and images, and that other prisoners called his family to extort money and harass them. He alleged generally that the warden of Salinas Valley State Prison and Kathleen Allison, the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, knew about the prisoners’ conduct and failed to stop it.

Reasons for Dismissal

The court held that the prisoner defendants could not be liable under Section 1983 because prisoners are private individuals, not state actors. The court therefore dismissed the claims against those prisoners. The opinion states that the claims against the warden and Secretary were also insufficient because the allegations that they knew about the conduct and failed to stop it were conclusory. The complaint did not plausibly show that either defendant was an integral participant in the alleged unlawful conduct. The court dismissed those claims without prejudice.

The court separately found that Arocha had not exhausted his available administrative remedies before filing suit. Arocha marked “NO” when asked whether his grievance had reached the highest available level of appeal. The court found that his Prison Rape Elimination Act complaint did not satisfy the exhaustion requirement. It also found that grievances from other facilities could not exhaust claims concerning Salinas Valley State Prison, and that the Salinas Valley grievance discussed only Barrios and did not identify the Secretary or warden. The court explained that prison regulations required a grievance to name all involved staff members and describe their involvement.

The court also noted that the allegations concerning Pelican Bay would not be timely claims and appeared to have been included as background. It stated that claims concerning events at Mule Creek State Prison and the Los Angeles County Jail would have to be brought in the appropriate district court because those events occurred outside the Northern District of California.

Disposition

The court dismissed the federal civil-rights action without prejudice to Arocha exhausting his administrative remedies and revising his allegations to provide enough factual matter to state a claim. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, Arocha may move to reopen the case. Any motion must be titled “MOTION TO REOPEN” on its first page and include an amended complaint showing exhaustion and facts supporting a reasonable inference that each defendant is liable. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment for the defendants and close the file.

Judge Richard Seeborg signed the order on October 2, 2024.