Bess v. Barroso

Background

Daniel E. Bess, a California prisoner proceeding without an attorney, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Lieutenant J. Barroso, Lieutenant J. Martinez, and R. Oviedo, officials at the Correctional Training Facility. After the court screened the complaint under the federal prisoner-screening statute, five claims were dismissed and two remained: a First Amendment retaliation claim and a California Bane Act claim.

Bess alleged that the defendants retaliated against him for filing a lawsuit against another correctional-facility employee and for filing administrative grievances. According to the complaint, Barroso prepared a Threat Assessment on August 2, 2023, that falsely identified Bess as a member of the “Sureno” gang. Bess alleged that Martinez later conducted a destructive cell search and poured coffee or a dark liquid, possibly urine, on legal papers that included a staff complaint and the pending lawsuit. Bess also alleged that Oviedo gave him copies of the Threat Assessment, a gang-affiliation sheet, and a confidential-information listing, signed off on the allegedly false information, and declined to report Barroso’s alleged misconduct.

Motion to dismiss

The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. They sought dismissal of the First Amendment retaliation claim against Oviedo and the Bane Act claim against all three defendants.

For a motion to dismiss, the court generally accepts well-supported factual allegations as true and asks whether the complaint states a plausible claim, not whether the plaintiff will ultimately win. The court also explained that pleadings filed without a lawyer are read liberally.

First Amendment retaliation claim

A prisoner’s First Amendment retaliation claim requires allegations that a state actor took adverse action because of protected conduct, that the action chilled the prisoner’s exercise of First Amendment rights, and that the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.

The defendants argued that Oviedo’s act of “signing off” on the Threat Assessment was not an adverse action. The court disagreed. It concluded that Bess’s allegations that Oviedo approved allegedly false information, failed to report Barroso, and communicated the documents to Bess supported a reasonable inference that Oviedo took adverse action. The court also found that Oviedo’s alleged statement that Bess “still might settle” his case could support an inference that the adverse consequences would continue if Bess kept exercising his rights. The court therefore denied the request to dismiss this claim.

Bane Act claim

The Bane Act claim required allegations that a defendant intentionally interfered, or tried to interfere, with Bess’s civil rights through threats, intimidation, or coercion; that Bess was harmed; and that the defendant’s conduct substantially caused the harm.

As to Barroso, the court held that the allegation that he fabricated the Threat Assessment, combined with its alleged timing on the day Bess received a favorable ruling in his pending lawsuit, supported a reasonable inference that Barroso interfered with Bess’s right to file a lawsuit and pursue administrative grievances.

As to Oviedo, the court held that the allegation that he knowingly endorsed documents falsely identifying Bess as a gang member supported a reasonable inference that he acted with the specific intent to interfere with Bess’s constitutional right to file a grievance through an implicit threat or intimidation.

As to Martinez, the court held that the allegation that he poured liquid on Bess’s legal papers, including papers concerning a staff complaint and pending lawsuit, supported a reasonable inference that Martinez interfered with Bess’s right to file a lawsuit by acting against his property. The court therefore concluded that the complaint stated a Bane Act claim against all three defendants.

Disposition and next steps

Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The order resolved docket number 14. It directed the defendants to file a summary-judgment motion by April 16, 2025, unless they informed the court that the case could not be resolved through summary judgment. Bess’s opposition, if any, was due May 16, 2025, and the defendants’ reply was due 14 days after the opposition was filed. The court stated that no hearing would be held unless it later ordered one.