Jacquez v. Borrego

Background

Myshielle Richelle Jacquez, who is incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison, filed a civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. She sued correctional officers at Salinas Valley State Prison: R. Borrego, A. Gomez, S. Alveraez, and Anyyia. The court had granted her permission to proceed without paying the filing fee in a separate order.

Jacquez alleged that on February 14, 2024, Borrego closed a housing-door opening on her hand while she was retrieving a kosher religious meal. She alleged that Borrego then denied doing so. She further alleged that she reported her injuries to Gomez and Alveraez, but they disregarded them; that Borrego, Gomez, and Alveraez refused her requests for a grievance form and for activation of a pad alarm so she could obtain medical care; and that Borrego threatened that her life would be hell if she filed a grievance.

Jacquez also alleged that Alveraez interfered while she was giving information to a nurse, attempted to pull the nurse away, taunted Jacquez, and activated the pad alarm. She alleged that Anyyia responded, spoke disrespectfully, directed that she be restrained, and caused Gomez to apply excessively tight handcuffs. She further alleged that Gomez kicked her shoe twice and said that any grievance would be thrown away. She sought compensatory and punitive damages and other relief.

Screening standard

Because Jacquez is a prisoner seeking relief from government officers, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court was required to identify claims that could proceed and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also said it would read a complaint filed without a lawyer generously, while still requiring enough facts to give defendants fair notice of the claims.

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a federal constitutional or statutory right was violated by a person acting under state law.

Excessive force

The court held that Jacquez’s allegation that Borrego intentionally slammed her hand in the door stated a legally sufficient Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim. The court held, however, that Gomez’s alleged kicking of Jacquez’s shoe twice did not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation. It dismissed the excessive-force claim against Gomez with prejudice because the court determined that amendment would be futile.

Medical-needs claim

The court explained that prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment when they know an incarcerated person faces a substantial risk of serious harm and disregard that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to address it. The court found the complaint unclear about the seriousness of Jacquez’s hand injury, what was wrong with her hand, what treatment she needed, and whether the defendants knew facts showing that she had a serious medical need. The court therefore dismissed the medical-needs claim with leave to amend. Jacquez was given 28 days to file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies.

Retaliation claims

The court held that Jacquez stated legally sufficient First Amendment retaliation claims against Borrego, Gomez, and Alveraez. Those claims were based on allegations that Borrego threatened her over filing a grievance, Gomez and Alveraez refused to provide available grievance forms, and Gomez said that grievances would be discarded.

The court held that Jacquez did not state a retaliation claim against Anyyia. The complaint did not allege that Anyyia knew about Jacquez’s grievances or that his conduct was motivated by her grievance activity. Instead, the allegations described Anyyia as reacting to Jacquez’s statement that custody could not interfere with medical care. The court dismissed the retaliation claim against Anyyia with leave to amend.

Order

The court ordered service on Borrego, Gomez, and Alverez through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service process. It found cognizable, meaning legally sufficient to proceed, an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against Borrego and First Amendment retaliation claims against Borrego, Gomez, and Alveraez.

The court dismissed the Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against Gomez with prejudice. It dismissed the Eighth Amendment medical-needs claim with leave to amend and allowed Jacquez 28 days to file an amended complaint. The order also set procedures for service, discovery, and future dispositive motions, including summary judgment.

The opinion uses both “S. Alveraez” and “Alverez” for the officer’s name. The service order uses “Alverez,” while the factual and claim discussions use “Alveraez.”