Alexander-Campos v. Perez

Background

Robert J. Alexander-Campos, identified as an inmate housed at Alameda County Jail, filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants were correctional officers Perez and Bruce and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The court stated that Alexander-Campos had been granted permission to proceed without paying the filing fee in a separate order.

Because a prisoner sued government defendants, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires the court to identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money damages from an immune defendant. The court also explained that complaints filed without a lawyer are read liberally, but must still provide enough facts to show an entitlement to relief.

Allegations and Requested Relief

The complaint alleged that, in late 2025, Alexander-Campos gave legal-mail staff at Soledad State Prison a change-of-address notice for filing with the court. The notice stated that he expected to be paroled on December 30, 2025, and could thereafter be reached at 2096 Eilene, Pleasanton, California. He alleged that the notice did not reach the court.

The complaint further alleged that a magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations on June 28, 2006, but Alexander-Campos did not receive that order because it was sent to his former address at Soledad State Prison rather than the address in his notice. The earlier case was then dismissed without prejudice, and judgment was entered for the defendants. In this action, Alexander-Campos requested that the Ninth Circuit’s denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity in the earlier related case be upheld.

Ruling

The court held that the complaint failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A § 1983 claim requires allegations that a federal constitutional or statutory right was violated and that the violation was committed by a person acting under state authority. The court found that Alexander-Campos had not alleged either a federal-law or constitutional violation committed by a person acting under state authority.

The court also stated that Alexander-Campos appeared to be seeking relief in an earlier related case in the Eastern District of California, identified as No. 1:03-cv-05249 OWW LJO. It explained that this court could not grant relief in other cases and that any request for relief should be filed in the cases at issue.

The court DISMISSED the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim under § 1983. In its conclusion, the court again stated that it DISMISSED the action for failure to state a claim, entered judgment in favor of the defendants and against Alexander-Campos, directed the clerk to close the case, and ended the matter.

Disposition

The action was dismissed with prejudice. Judgment was entered for the defendants, and the case was closed.