Crosby v. Siordia

Background

Robert Lee Crosby, an incarcerated person proceeding without a lawyer, sued correctional officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court reviewed the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s screening requirement, which requires a court to identify claims that may proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, inadequately pleaded, or seek relief from an immune defendant.

Crosby named Salvador Siordia, Pedro Martinez, and J. Nunez. He alleged that Nunez and Siordia searched his cell on October 24, 2022; that Siordia damaged his television and took various items; and that Crosby received disciplinary reports for possessing alcohol and a wireless device. Crosby alleged that no alcohol was found and that he was found guilty of the reports, resulting in the forfeiture of 120 days of credit.

Crosby further alleged that, on November 17, 2022, he told Siordia to stop what Crosby described as racist treatment and threatened to file a grievance. Crosby alleged that Siordia then said, “Oh, you like writing up officers. I’ll show you how we do it.” Crosby claimed that Siordia recruited Martinez and Nunez to help remove inmates who filed grievances. On November 24, 2022, Siordia allegedly searched Crosby’s cell without allowing him to watch and Crosby later discovered that his tennis shoes were missing. On November 30, 2022, Martinez and Siordia allegedly ordered Crosby to move cells, and Martinez issued another disciplinary report when Crosby refused. Crosby alleged that Black inmates were the only inmates ordered to move and that he lost 61 more days of credit after being found guilty.

Claims and Screening Ruling

The court held that the allegation that Siordia stole Crosby’s tennis shoes in response to Crosby’s threat to file grievances stated a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim. A cognizable claim is one sufficient to continue past the initial screening stage. The court relied on the requirement that a prisoner allege protected conduct, an adverse action taken because of that conduct, a chilling effect on the prisoner’s rights, and the absence of a legitimate correctional purpose.

The court held that the complaint did not state a First Amendment retaliation claim against Nunez because Nunez’s alleged participation in the October 24 cell search occurred before Crosby’s November 17 threat to file grievances. The court also held that the allegations against Martinez were conclusory and did not show that Martinez knew about Crosby’s protected conduct.

The court dismissed the Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim because Crosby had not alleged a risk to his safety. The court dismissed Nunez and Martinez from the action and granted Crosby leave to file an amended complaint addressing these deficiencies. The order does not state that these dismissals were with or without prejudice.

Orders and Next Steps

The court ordered service on Correctional Training Facility officer Salvador Siordia through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic service program. Crosby may file an amended complaint within 28 days of the order. If he does not, the original complaint will remain operative and the action will proceed solely against the defendant ordered served and on the claim found cognizable.

The court also ordered Siordia to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion within 91 days of the order, unless he informs the court that summary judgment cannot resolve the case. The order permits discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and sets deadlines for responses to any dispositive motion.