Vera v. Barajas

Background

Andes Vera, a California state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Correctional Officer A. Barajas, a guard at the Correctional Training Facility. The court had already granted Vera permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.

According to Vera’s allegations, Barajas stopped and searched him on July 21, 2023, while Vera was going to his prison work assignment. Barajas confiscated a contraband cellular phone and Vera’s legally obtained Hiteker tablet. Barajas refused Vera’s request to return the tablet and did not respond to Vera’s later written request.

Vera then filed a grievance against Barajas. Vera alleged that, after learning about the grievance, Barajas threatened to issue a Rules Violation Report and then filed a report accusing Vera of possessing a wireless-device component. Vera alleged that the report was fabricated and retaliatory, and he stated that he was later found not guilty of the violation. Vera filed another grievance alleging retaliation, intimidation, and harassment.

Screening standard

Because Vera sought relief from a government officer, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At this stage, the court identifies claims that are legally sufficient and dismisses claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or barred by immunity. The court also must read a complaint filed without a lawyer liberally, especially in a civil-rights case.

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a federal constitutional or statutory right was violated and that the violation was committed by a person acting under state authority. For a First Amendment retaliation claim in prison, the plaintiff must allege that a state actor took an adverse action because of protected conduct, that the action chilled the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights, and that the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.

Court’s ruling

The court found that Vera stated plausible § 1983 claims based on First Amendment retaliation. The court accepted, for screening purposes, Vera’s allegations that Barajas took adverse action by filing a Rules Violation Report because Vera filed a grievance, that Barajas’s actions chilled Vera’s exercise of First Amendment rights, and that the actions did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.

The court ordered that A. Barajas be served at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad through the prison-system electronic service process. It also authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, without requiring another court order before discovery could begin.

The order set procedures for future dispositive motions. Defendants could file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion within 91 days after the order’s filing date. Vera’s opposition would be due 28 days after such a motion was filed, and defendants’ reply would be due 14 days after the opposition. The court warned that failing to oppose a summary-judgment motion could result in judgment against Vera without a trial.

The order screened the complaint and found the retaliation claims cognizable; it did not decide the ultimate truth of Vera’s allegations or whether he would prevail on the claims.