Preston v. Vega

Background

Nathan Preston, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officers at Salinas Valley State Prison, where he had previously been incarcerated. The court had separately granted his application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The complaint alleged that, on October 14, 2025, Officers A. Vega and Mendez ordered Preston to pack his cellmate’s property. Preston later alleged that his cellmate assaulted him in the cell, that officers used chemical spray against him without warning, and that he was not allowed to decontaminate afterward. He also alleged that the officers issued a rules-violation report that did not explain what caused the attack. He sought damages and further staff training.

Screening and Claims

Because Preston is a prisoner seeking relief from government officers, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek relief from an immune defendant.

The court inferred an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim from the allegation that Officers Vega and Mendez used chemical spray without first warning Preston. The court held that these allegations were sufficient to state that claim.

The court also inferred a due-process claim based on the rules-violation report. It found the allegations insufficient to determine whether the disciplinary proceeding involved a protected liberty interest or whether Preston was denied required procedures. Preston did not describe the charges, the procedures used, whether he was found guilty, the punishment imposed, or any specific procedural protection he was denied.

Although Preston described himself as an “ADA mentally disabled inmate,” the court said it was unclear whether he intended to assert a claim under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court found that the complaint did not plausibly allege the elements of such a claim, including disability, qualification for a public service or program, and exclusion, denial of benefits, or discrimination because of disability.

Disposition

The court found that the complaint contained deficient claims but granted Preston leave to file an amended complaint attempting to correct the identified problems. The amended complaint was due by September 10, 2026, and had to use the case caption and number from the order and state “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. The court explained that an amended complaint would replace the original complaint, so claims or defendants omitted from it would no longer be part of the case. If Preston failed to amend on time, or if the amended complaint did not cure the defects, the court could issue an order reassigning the case to a district judge with a recommendation that the deficient claims be dismissed. Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi did not state that the excessive-force claim was dismissed.