Rico v. Secretary of CDCR

Background

Jorge Andrade Rico, an incarcerated person at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this self-represented civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After the court dismissed his original complaint with permission to amend, Rico filed an amended complaint.

Rico named the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the Pelican Bay State Prison warden in their official capacities. He named mailroom officers Gonzales and Vaugh in their individual capacities. Rico alleged that legal mail was delayed or lost in 2020 and 2021. He also alleged that, after he filed administrative grievances about the mail problems, Gonzales and Vaugh interviewed him, failed to properly investigate the grievances, asked him not to file grievances against them, and were involved in later losses of legal mail.

Screening standard

Because Rico sought relief from government officials while incarcerated, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At this stage, the court had to identify claims that could proceed and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or sought money damages from an immune defendant. The court also stated that it must read a self-represented prisoner’s allegations liberally.

Claims against Gonzales and Vaugh

The court dismissed Rico’s claim based on mail delays. Although prisoners have a First Amendment right to send and receive mail, the court explained that a temporary or isolated delay does not violate that right. Rico alleged that the October and November 2020 delays each lasted less than a week, which the court found insufficient to state a First Amendment claim.

The court allowed Rico’s First Amendment retaliation claim to proceed. A retaliation claim in the prison setting requires allegations that a state actor took adverse action because of protected conduct, that the action chilled or could chill the prisoner’s exercise of constitutional rights, and that the action did not further a legitimate prison-related interest. The court found that Rico identified protected conduct—filing grievances—an adverse action—disappearing legal mail—and a connection between the two. The claim was therefore sufficient to survive screening against Gonzales and Vaugh.

The court dismissed Rico’s access-to-the-courts claim. Such a claim requires an actual injury caused by an inadequate prison legal-access system, meaning that the problem hindered a non-frivolous legal claim. Regarding a missing reply brief in an earlier related proceeding, the court found that Rico did not identify a response he could have filed, that the court’s local rules generally did not permit a response to that reply, and that the prior decision did not rely on the reply. Regarding a missing letter from Rico’s attorney, the court found that Rico learned of the relevant appellate ruling by no later than August 18, 2021, while the applicable deadline for seeking review in the United States Supreme Court still left him more than five weeks to file. The court therefore found no actual injury.

Claims against the Secretary and warden

The court dismissed the claims against the Secretary and the Pelican Bay State Prison warden. It found that Rico sued those defendants based only on their supervisory responsibilities and did not allege that either was personally involved in the asserted wrongdoing. Under § 1983, the court explained, an official is liable for that official’s own misconduct, not merely because the official supervises someone who allegedly caused harm.

Disposition and next steps

The court dismissed all claims and defendants other than the First Amendment retaliation claim against Gonzales and Vaugh without leave to amend. It ordered service of the amended complaint on Gonzales and Vaugh through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program. It also directed the parties to follow deadlines for a comprehensive dispositive motion, including summary judgment, responses, replies, and discovery. The clerk was directed to update the case caption so that only Gonzales and Vaugh remained as defendants.