Pugh v. Siordia

Background

Darryl Pugh, a state prisoner incarcerated at Correctional Training Facility, filed this civil-rights case without a lawyer. The court had previously dismissed the action because Pugh had not filed an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. Pugh later filed that application and an amended complaint.

The court stated that the application would be granted by separate order. In this order, the court vacated the prior judgment, reopened the case, and addressed whether the amended complaint identified claims that could proceed past the required preliminary screening for a prisoner’s action against a government officer.

Allegations and screening ruling

Pugh alleged that Correctional Officer Salvador Siordia treated Pugh and other Black prisoners worse than non-Black prisoners. The alleged conduct included using derogatory language, saying that Black prisoners kept too much property in their cells, searching their cells, ordering a property-list procedure, and requiring the prisoners to move to another building.

Pugh also alleged that Siordia removed him from his assigned job after Pugh called Siordia racist and objected to the treatment of Black prisoners. Pugh further alleged that Siordia ordered him to move on June 19, 2024, because Pugh was writing prison grievances, and filed a false report on June 26, 2024, stating that Pugh refused to accept housing.

The court explained that a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires allegations that a constitutional or federal legal right was violated by a person acting under state authority. Construing Pugh’s self-represented complaint liberally, the court found that he stated a First Amendment retaliation claim and a Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection claim. The excerpt is incomplete at the point where it begins to describe an additional claim, so it does not clearly identify whether the court recognized any other claim.

Order

The court ordered the Clerk to vacate the prior judgment and reopen the case. It ordered service of the amended complaint on Correctional Officer Salvador Siordia through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program, with formal service through the United States Marshals Service if necessary.

The order states that Siordia must answer or otherwise respond within 21 days. It also sets deadlines for any summary-judgment or other dispositive motion, Pugh’s opposition, and a reply. Discovery may proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order further requires Pugh to serve communications on Siordia or counsel and to keep the court informed of any address change.

Classification

This is a procedural order because the court conducted prisoner-complaint screening and arranged service rather than deciding whether Pugh ultimately proved his constitutional claims. The court’s finding that the complaint stated claims allows the case to proceed; it is not a final merits ruling.