Lopez v. Ronneberg

Background

Andrew Lopez, an inmate at San Quentin Rehabilitation Center, filed the action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal statute that allows claims against state actors for violating federal rights. Because Lopez was a prisoner suing correctional officials, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Lopez had paid the filing fee.

The complaint named correctional officials and alleged seven episodes of retaliation connected to Lopez’s prison grievances or threatened grievances. It also alleged that Alvarado and Morales were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs when they moved a microwave and refrigerator to a gym loft, and that Malikian was deliberately indifferent when Lopez was moved from a first-floor cell to a fifth-floor cell. The complaint also asserted claims under California’s Bane Act and requested declaratory relief, damages, fees and costs, and injunctive relief concerning the preservation of recordings and other records.

Claims Allowed to Proceed

The court found a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim against Ronneberg based on Ronneberg’s July 7, 2021 comments about Lopez’s prior complaints and grievance filings. A cognizable claim is one that is sufficiently stated to proceed past initial screening; the order did not decide whether Lopez will ultimately prove the claim.

The court also identified allegations concerning retaliation by other officials, including Michael, Morales, Alvarado, Malikian, Dotts, Real, and Burns. But it concluded that these alleged incidents arose from separate occurrences and did not share the required common legal or factual questions with the claim against Ronneberg. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20, unrelated claims against different defendants cannot be joined in one action.

Claims Dismissed

The court dismissed the retaliation claims against the remaining defendants without prejudice to Lopez filing separate civil-rights actions concerning those claims. The court specifically directed that Real, Malikian, Pushilk, and Giacomozzi be terminated from this action.

The court dismissed with prejudice the Eighth Amendment claim against Alvarado and Morales concerning the microwave and refrigerator. It concluded that the alleged inability to use those items did not expose Lopez to a substantial risk of serious harm. The court dismissed without prejudice the Eighth Amendment claim against Malikian concerning the fifth-floor cell. It found that the claim did not adequately allege a serious risk of harm or that Malikian knew of such a risk, and it also found that the claim violated the joinder rule. The court stated that Lopez could bring that claim separately while correcting the identified deficiency.

The court dismissed with prejudice Lopez’s Bane Act claims against all defendants. It explained that the complaint did not allege that Ronneberg threatened or committed violent acts against Lopez or injured him.

The court dismissed Lopez’s request for injunctive relief because the requested action was unclear and because Ronneberg was no longer a correctional officer at the facility, making such relief likely moot. The court also dismissed the request for compensatory damages because Lopez had not alleged a physical injury, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act provision cited in the order. The order did not specify a prejudice designation for these two dismissals.

Disposition and Next Steps

The court ordered service of the complaint on former San Quentin Rehabilitation Center sergeant Ronneberg. The action proceeds on the First Amendment retaliation claim against Ronneberg. The order required Ronneberg to file a summary-judgment motion or another motion resolving the case within 91 days after the order was filed, unless Ronneberg informed the court that summary judgment was not appropriate. It set deadlines for Lopez’s opposition and Ronneberg’s reply and allowed discovery under the federal rules.

The order also required Lopez to serve copies of his court filings on Ronneberg or counsel, keep the court informed of address changes, and prosecute the case. The judge was Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., United States District Judge.