Scalant v. Santa Cruz County Sheriffs Department Administration

Background

Alberto Erick Scalant, a detainee at Santa Cruz County Jail, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The court had previously dismissed an amended complaint while allowing amendment. Scalant then filed a second amended complaint, which the court reviewed under the federal screening law for prisoner claims against governmental entities or employees.

Scalant alleged that a deputy searched his cell, left alcohol there, wrote him up for possessing it, and that he was found guilty at a disciplinary hearing and lost commissary privileges. He also alleged retaliation for filing an earlier civil-rights case and jail grievances. The alleged retaliatory acts included cell searches, a housing-unit move, delayed meals, returned legal mail, denied phone calls, a medication change, and restrictions on features of his electronic tablet.

Rulings

Due process claim. The court dismissed this claim without leave to amend. It held that the allegation that the deputy left the alcohol in the cell did not establish a federal constitutional violation. It also held that losing commissary privileges, by itself, was not the kind of punishment or protected liberty-interest deprivation needed for a pretrial detainee’s procedural due process claim. Scalant did not identify a state statute or regulation creating a protected liberty interest in commissary privileges, and the court concluded that further amendment would not cure the claim’s defects.

Retaliation claim. The court found that Scalant had only partially supplied the required facts. He identified some defendants but did not specifically connect particular incidents to particular defendants or provide facts showing that protected conduct—such as filing a lawsuit or grievance—was a substantial or motivating reason for the alleged retaliation. The court also rejected the allegation that Defendant Scott Enrico was responsible for all retaliation because Scalant did not describe specific incidents in which Enrico took adverse action because of protected conduct.

The court dismissed the second amended complaint with leave to file a third amended complaint correcting the retaliation allegations by May 15, 2025. For each alleged retaliatory incident, the court required Scalant to identify the defendants, date, specific actions, facts supporting retaliatory motive, and the grievance filed about the incident and its result. The court stated that no further amendments would be permitted. It warned that failing to file a compliant third amended complaint would result in dismissal of the suit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The opinion’s judge signature is not readable enough to identify the judge by name.