Scott v. LT Mccay

Background

James Scott, a prisoner at Salinas Valley State Prison, sued Lieutenant McCay and Sergeant Dominguez under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state actors who violate federal rights. Scott represented himself. The court screened his amended complaint under the prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Scott alleged that Dominguez ordered him to strip, that Scott refused, and that Dominguez then retaliated by losing or destroying outgoing legal mail and entering false information in prison records. Scott also alleged that McCay mishandled or falsely investigated grievances about missing property and legal mail. He further alleged that McCay conspired with Dominguez. Scott claimed that prison officials’ handling of legal CDs prevented him from filing or pursuing a federal case.

Screening Rulings

First Amendment retaliation

The court dismissed the First Amendment retaliation claim with prejudice. It reasoned that Scott’s alleged refusal to strip was not conduct protected by the First Amendment, so amendment would be futile.

Due process claim

The court dismissed the due process claim with prejudice. The court explained that McCay’s alleged involvement consisted of reviewing Scott’s grievances and that a prisoner has no constitutional right to an effective grievance or appeal process. The court also dismissed McCay from the action because the claims against her had been dismissed.

Conspiracy claim

The court dismissed the conspiracy claim with prejudice. It found that the complaint did not state a valid underlying constitutional violation and that Scott’s allegations of an agreement between McCay and Dominguez were conclusory rather than specific facts showing a shared plan to violate his rights.

Access to the courts

The court dismissed the First Amendment access-to-the-courts claim with leave to amend. To state this type of claim, Scott had to allege that prison officials’ actions caused actual harm to a pending or contemplated case, such as dismissal, a missed filing deadline, or another form of legal prejudice. The court found it unclear how the return of the CDs in January 2024 caused the claimed harm, particularly because Scott stated that he had recently been able to file a federal petition after a California Supreme Court denial on June 12, 2024.

The court allowed Scott 28 days to file a second amended complaint. It directed him to identify the litigation he was pursuing when the CDs were returned and explain how the return prevented him from meeting deadlines or presenting his claims. The court stated that the second amended complaint would replace the earlier complaints and could not replead claims already dismissed with prejudice. Failure to file it as ordered would result in dismissal of the action without further notice.

Appointment of Counsel

The court denied Scott’s request for appointed counsel. Scott cited cognitive and mental-health conditions and submitted a 2019 psychological evaluation. The court concluded that, at this stage, it was unclear whether Scott would succeed because there was no operative complaint, and therefore found no exceptional circumstances requiring appointed counsel.

Classification

This is a procedural order because the court screened the amended complaint for legally sufficient claims and allowed one claim to be repleaded, rather than deciding the ultimate merits of the underlying dispute.