Sonier v. CDCR

Background

Markkis Porsche Sonier, a California state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and staff members at San Quentin Rehabilitation Center. He alleged that Lieutenant C. Bass falsified a Rules Violation Report and directed H Yard Correctional Officer Castillo and others not to let him attend religious services while he was receiving Enhanced Outpatient Program mental-health care during September and October 2023. Sonier alleged that this occurred five times, discriminated against him because of his mental illness, and retaliated against him for filing a prison grievance known as a “602.” He sought compensatory and punitive damages.

Screening analysis

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court screened the complaint because Sonier is a prisoner suing a governmental entity and government employees. The court explained that a complaint must be dismissed if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from that relief.

The court stated that CDCR, as a state agency, is generally protected from suit for damages by the Eleventh Amendment. It nevertheless found that Sonier’s allegations, read generously, stated a damages claim against CDCR under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court concluded that Sonier alleged that CDCR denied him access to religious services or programs because of his mental-health disability while he was in the Enhanced Outpatient Program.

The court dismissed Sonier’s claim that Bass filed a false Rules Violation Report. It explained that a prisoner does not have a constitutional right not to be falsely accused, so long as the prisoner receives procedural due process in the disciplinary hearing.

The court found that Sonier stated a First Amendment retaliation claim against Bass based on the allegation that Bass issued the Rules Violation Report in response to Sonier’s 602. The court also found that Sonier stated a First Amendment religious-practice claim against Bass and Castillo based on the allegation that they prevented him from attending church services for two months.

The court found no claims against the other defendants because Sonier did not describe how they were involved in violating his rights.

Order

The court ordered electronic service on CDCR, Lieutenant Bass, and Officer Castillo through CDCR’s electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. It directed CDCR to report which defendants would waive service and provided for United States Marshal Service of any defendant who did not waive service.

The court set a briefing schedule for summary-judgment or other dispositive motions: defendants’ motions were due within 56 days after service; Sonier’s opposition was due 28 days after the motion; and any reply was due 14 days after the opposition. The court also authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and gave instructions concerning service of documents, address changes, prosecution of the case, and requests for extensions of time.

The order therefore allowed the identified ADA and First Amendment claims to move forward for service and further proceedings, while dismissing the false-report claim and identifying no claims against the other defendants.