Paleveda v. Alameda County

Background

Nicholas Ewing Paleveda, a detainee proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Alameda County and other defendants. The court had dismissed his original complaint with permission to amend. Paleveda then filed an amended complaint.

Screening standard

Because the complaint was brought by a detainee against governmental defendants, the court screened it under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At screening, the court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires enough factual allegations to give defendants fair notice and make the claim plausible.

To state a claim under § 1983, Paleveda had to allege both a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and action by a person acting under state authority.

Claims concerning religion and diet

Paleveda alleged that Buenrostro denied his request for a kosher diet and that Chavez, Young, and an unidentified defendant denied related grievances. The court found a cognizable religious-practice claim against Buenrostro. It found no claim against the defendants based only on their handling of grievances because there is no constitutional right to a prison grievance or appeals system. The court allowed Paleveda either to add allegations against those defendants or to proceed only against Buenrostro on that issue.

Paleveda also alleged that he was denied religious services and a chaplain, and that Posedel, Chavez, and Young declined to pray with him as a religious accommodation. The court found that he had not provided enough detail about the denial of services or identified the defendant responsible, and he failed to state a claim based on the defendants’ refusal to pray with him.

The court further found that Byrd, Seig, and Gaoteote’s removal of Paleveda’s sacred hair trimmings stated a religious-rights claim. It also found that Paleveda stated a retaliation claim against Gaoteote based on the allegation that Gaoteote issued a disciplinary report after Paleveda sought the return of the hair and requested a hearing.

Property and due process claims

The court explained that a random and unauthorized loss or destruction of property generally does not support a § 1983 due-process claim when an adequate state remedy is available. It found that California provides such a post-deprivation remedy. On that basis and the allegations presented, Paleveda did not state a due-process claim concerning the hair trimmings, although he could try to plead additional supporting facts.

Paleveda also alleged that Posedel found him guilty at a disciplinary hearing and that Keles imposed 30 days’ loss of privileges. The court found that he did not explain how the hearing violated due process or how the loss of privileges constituted a due-process violation. He could address the claim in an amended complaint or dismiss it and the related defendants.

Other allegations and unrelated claims

Paleveda alleged that he lacked adequate time and space for exercise, but he did not identify the responsible defendant or sufficiently explain the constitutional violation. He also included allegations about dirty cells, information about the jail’s attorney, other retaliation incidents, and other matters. The court concluded that the amended complaint still joined unrelated claims against numerous defendants. Paleveda was permitted to remove those claims and defendants from this case and bring them in a separate action. The court warned that failure to remove them could result in dismissal of those claims and defendants.

Disposition

The court dismissed the amended complaint with leave to file a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint had to be filed within 28 days of the order and had to include the case caption and number and the words “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. Because an amended complaint replaces the earlier complaint, Paleveda had to include every claim he wished to pursue and could not incorporate the earlier complaint by reference.

The court denied Paleveda’s motion for judgment and his § 1985 status request. It also stated that failure to amend on time, or failure to prosecute the case and keep the court informed of address changes, could result in dismissal. The excerpt’s conclusion omits a numbered paragraph 2, but the surrounding text clearly states the leave-to-amend requirements.