Jones v. Gallegos

Background

Jimmie Earl Jones, III, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Correctional Officer Hunter Gallegos. Jones also asked the court to appoint a lawyer. He sought monetary damages.

Jones alleged that on December 6, 2023, he found a cellular phone plugged into a wall behind his locker. A sticky note on the phone contained an unlock code. Jones alleged that Gallegos confiscated the phone and told him he would suffer no consequences if he provided the code. Jones provided it, but Gallegos allegedly still wrote him up. Jones alleged that the phone did not belong to him and that Gallegos violated institutional policy and engaged in discrimination and retaliation.

Screening standard

Because Jones is a prisoner seeking relief from a government officer, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At this stage, the court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a complaint must contain enough factual allegations to make the requested relief plausible, rather than relying only on labels or conclusions.

To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law and conduct by a person acting under state authority.

Rules-violation claim

The court held that a due-process claim based only on an allegedly false or unfair disciplinary report does not state a Section 1983 claim. Prisoners do not have a federally protected right to be free from false accusations. The court noted that Jones did not contest the procedural fairness of the disciplinary hearing.

The court dismissed this claim with leave to amend so Jones could clarify whether he received procedural due process in connection with the rules-violation report.

Retaliation and discrimination claims

Jones alleged that Gallegos engaged in retaliation and discrimination, but he provided no factual support for those assertions.

For a prison-retaliation claim under the First Amendment, the court explained that a prisoner must allege that a state actor took adverse action because of the prisoner’s protected conduct, that the action chilled the prisoner’s exercise of First Amendment rights, and that the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. The court gave Jones an opportunity to amend if he could state facts supporting a viable retaliation claim.

For an equal-protection discrimination claim under Section 1983, the court explained that a plaintiff must show intentional discrimination based on membership in a protected class and different treatment from similarly situated people. The opinion’s discussion of this claim is incomplete in the provided text, but the court’s conclusion dismissed the complaint with leave to amend.

Appointment of counsel

The court denied Jones’s motion for appointment of counsel. It explained that there is generally no constitutional right to a lawyer in a civil case and that appointment under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) is generally reserved for exceptional circumstances. The court found no exceptional circumstances at this stage and determined that Jones had shown he could present his claims, facts, and arguments adequately.

Disposition and amendment instructions

The court ordered that the complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. Jones must file an amended complaint within 28 days after the order was filed. The amended complaint must use the caption and civil case number from the order and include the words “Amended Complaint” on the first page. It will replace the original complaint, so Jones must include every claim and supporting factual allegation he wishes to pursue rather than incorporating the earlier complaint by reference.

The court also stated that failure to prosecute or comply with court orders could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).