Brazier v. Mora

Background

Kevin Dean Brazier, identified as a state prisoner, filed a civil-rights complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The original complaint was dismissed with permission to amend, and Brazier filed an amended complaint.

The court conducted the required preliminary screening of a prisoner’s complaint against government officials. At this stage, the court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.

Allegations

Brazier alleged that on December 28, 2021, Custody Officer S. Mora told him that prison officials were inspecting inmates’ personal electronic tablets. Brazier gave Mora his tablet. According to the amended complaint, the tablet was taken elsewhere, no written paperwork was provided in violation of prison regulations, and prison employees later lost the tablet through negligence.

Brazier alleged that he filed a grievance on January 18, 2022, seeking return of the tablet. He then received a Rules Violation Report on March 8, 2022, for possessing an electronic tablet. He claimed the report was issued in retaliation for his grievance. He was found guilty at a disciplinary hearing and lost time credits as punishment. He also challenged the timing of the report and a change to the stated offense date.

Court’s analysis

The court described the elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim in the prison setting. A prisoner must allege that a state actor took adverse action because of protected conduct, that the action chilled the prisoner’s exercise of constitutional rights, and that the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.

The court explained that the alleged negligent or intentional loss of property did not state a due-process claim under § 1983 when the deprivation was random and unauthorized, because California provides an adequate state remedy after the loss. The court also explained that a § 1983 claim challenging a conviction, imprisonment, or loss of time credits generally cannot proceed unless the underlying result has been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or otherwise called into question in the required manner. The opinion states that Brazier had not shown that the disciplinary finding had been reversed or expunged.

The court said that the amended complaint was substantially similar to the original complaint and did not cure the previously identified deficiencies. The original complaint had stated a retaliation claim against Mora, while the remaining claims had been dismissed with permission to amend.

Disposition

The court ordered that Custody Officer S. Mora be served electronically for the retaliation claim. It dismissed all other claims and defendants for failure to state a claim. The order did not decide the ultimate merits of the retaliation claim. It directed the defendant to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion within 60 days after service, and it set response deadlines and procedures for service, discovery, and further prosecution of the case.