Siguenza v. CDCR

Background

Marlon Edgardo Siguenza, an incarcerated plaintiff representing himself, filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state actors who violate federal constitutional or statutory rights. The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires an early review of a prisoner’s claims against a governmental entity or its officials. The defendants named were the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), correctional officer S. Mora, and correctional officials J. Peffley, J. Gomez, and Z. Brown.

Siguenza alleged that he helped another inmate prepare a grievance about missing property. He alleged that officials later searched his cell, forced him and his cellmate to leave without face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic, confiscated a tablet, and issued a disciplinary report. He also alleged that Mora threatened him in 2022 and 2023 because of possible litigation. The complaint further alleged racial discrimination against Hispanic inmates, a conspiracy among the officials, exposure to COVID-19, danger from other inmates, and interference with parole-related interests.

Claims Allowed to Proceed

The court found cognizable First Amendment retaliation claims against Mora based on two allegations: that Mora searched Siguenza’s cell in retaliation for Siguenza’s assistance with another inmate’s grievance, and that Mora later warned Siguenza against filing lawsuits. The court concluded that the complaint did not adequately connect Gomez, Brown, or Peffley to retaliatory conduct. The court ordered service on Mora only.

Claims Dismissed With Leave to Amend

The court dismissed with leave to amend the retaliation claims against Gomez, Brown, and Peffley. It also dismissed with leave to amend the conspiracy claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986. The court held that the conspiracy allegations were vague and conclusory and did not provide enough facts showing an agreement or meeting of the minds to violate Siguenza’s rights.

The court also dismissed with leave to amend the Eighth Amendment claim alleging exposure to COVID-19. It found that the complaint did not adequately allege that the temporary loss of a face mask was an objectively serious deprivation or that Mora and Brown knew Siguenza faced a substantial risk of serious harm from that temporary deprivation.

Claims Dismissed With Prejudice

The court dismissed with prejudice the Title VI and Equal Protection claims. It held that the allegation that a cell search occurred in a housing wing with a predominantly Hispanic population did not reasonably support an inference that the search was conducted because of race or to target Hispanic inmates.

The court dismissed with prejudice the Eighth Amendment and California Bane Act claims based on Mora’s threats about what might happen if Siguenza filed a lawsuit. It held that mere threats did not constitute a constitutional violation and that the complaint did not allege the injury required for a Bane Act claim.

The court also dismissed with prejudice the claim that the disciplinary report interfered with Siguenza’s liberty interest in parole. It reasoned that disciplinary actions do not create a protected liberty interest merely because they might affect a future parole decision, particularly where the prisoner receives procedural protections at a parole hearing.

Motion to Relate and Further Proceedings

The court denied Siguenza’s motion to relate this case to an earlier case involving Peffley and Mora. It stated that the local rule required a motion to relate cases to be filed in the lower-numbered case.

Siguenza may file an amended complaint within 28 days of the order. The amended complaint must replace the original complaint and include all claims and defendants he wishes to pursue. If he does not amend within the deadline, the action will proceed solely on the First Amendment retaliation claim against Mora, and the remaining defendants will be dismissed. The order also set deadlines for a defense summary-judgment or other dispositive motion and for the parties’ responses.