Vasquez v. Ortega

Background

Isaias Vasquez, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that he heard voices making insulting statements, believed the voices came from correctional officers through “heat sensor / visual intelligence” technology, and believed officers were conspiring to make him think the voices were in his head. He also alleged that the voices and a sensation of static or energy interfered with his sleep. Vasquez had visited mental-health services and refused prescribed medication. He filed a grievance about the voices and challenged its denial.

Vasquez sought injunctions ordering prison officers to stop using the alleged technology, disclose the names of officers using it, and transfer him to another prison yard. The opinion states that the transfer was already pending because of his good behavior.

Screening and Analysis

Because Vasquez was a prisoner suing governmental officials, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under that statute, 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 was required to read his self-represented complaint liberally, while still requiring enough facts to make a claim plausible.

The court held that the alleged verbal harassment was not a legally recognized claim under § 1983. It also agreed with the grievance reviewer that the allegations about the source of the voices were implausible. The court stated that it did not doubt Vasquez heard voices, but found it implausible that the voices came from an external source, followed him everywhere, and came from technology that Vasquez did not allege had an audio function. The court concluded that amendment would be futile because the complaint challenged only verbal harassment.

The court also held that the denial of Vasquez’s grievance was not a cognizable claim. Reviewing or denying a grievance, or failing to process or investigate one, generally does not itself violate a prisoner’s constitutional rights. The complaint did not allege that the grievance denial caused additional harm. The court concluded that amendment of this claim also would be futile.

Injunctive Relief

The court denied Vasquez’s requests for preliminary injunctive relief. Because he had not stated a cognizable claim, he could not meet the preliminary-injunction standard for the alleged harassment and grievance claims. The request for a transfer also failed because it lacked a sufficient connection to the complaint, and the court stated that the request was unnecessary because the transfer was already pending.

Medical Needs

The court stated that Vasquez did not bring a medical-needs claim in this action. It further stated that the attached grievance showed that any such claim would not have been exhausted. The court nevertheless explained that prison officials must provide constitutionally adequate care for mental-health needs. If Vasquez later seeks psychiatric or sleep-related treatment and that treatment is denied or inadequate, the court stated that he may file a new action.

Disposition

Judge P. Casey Pitts dismissed the complaint without leave to amend because it did not state any cognizable and curable claim. The dismissal does not bar a future lawsuit to the extent Vasquez has, and exhausts, a medical-needs claim. The court granted Vasquez’s motion to proceed without paying the full filing fee upfront and set the initial partial filing fee at $0.01. The clerk was directed to terminate all other pending motions and close the file.