Crosby v. Siordia

Background

Robert Lee Crosby, who was incarcerated at California State Prison – Corcoran, filed this self-represented lawsuit against Correctional Training Facility officer Salvador Siordia under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The operative claim alleged that Siordia retaliated against Crosby for saying on November 17, 2022, that he would file a grievance about Siordia’s treatment of Black inmates in G-Wing. Crosby alleged that, during a November 24, 2022 cell search, Siordia caused Crosby’s tennis shoes to disappear and did not provide an inventory slip.

Earlier in the case, the court dismissed or declined to allow several other claims involving cell searches, property damage, disciplinary reports, a cell move, and other officers. The only remaining claim was the First Amendment retaliation claim concerning the alleged taking of Crosby’s shoes during the November 24 search.

Request to File a Second Amended Complaint

Crosby asked for permission to file a second amended complaint. The court denied the request. It found that Crosby had delayed unduly: the case had been pending for almost three years, the request came more than a year after an earlier amendment deadline, and it was filed five months after Siordia moved for summary judgment. The proposed complaint largely repeated facts and claims that Crosby already knew or that the court had previously rejected.

The court also found that amendment would be futile, meaning that the proposed complaint would still fail to state a legally valid claim. It concluded that the proposed allegations concerning a conspiracy involving officers J. Nunez and P. Martinez, violations of prison regulations, and newly named defendants’ alleged prosecution of a fraudulent rules-violation report did not state claims for relief. The court therefore denied the request for leave to file the proposed second amended complaint at Docket No. 35.

Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is a ruling entered when the record shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. Siordia argued that Crosby had not exhausted the prison grievance process required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act before bringing the retaliation claim. Siordia also argued, alternatively, that Crosby lacked enough evidence of retaliation. Because it resolved the case on exhaustion, the court did not address the alternative argument or the merits of whether Siordia retaliated.

The court found that the prison grievance process was available to Crosby. Although Crosby referred to at least six grievances, the record did not show that any of them alerted prison officials to a November 24, 2022 cell search or to the taking of his tennis shoes during a November 2022 search. The court determined that general allegations of harassment were distinct from the specific retaliation claim at issue.

One grievance described the shoes as taken during an October 24, 2022 search, while the claim in this lawsuit concerned the November 24, 2022 search. The court noted that the record was unclear about the date on which the shoes disappeared, but it presumed the November 24 date because only that date could support a retaliation claim based on Crosby’s November 17 protected statement. The court also stated that there was no indication Crosby had told prison officials that the October date in the grievance was a mistake.

Disposition

The court found that Crosby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies for the remaining retaliation claim. It therefore granted Siordia’s motion for summary judgment at Docket No. 29. The court denied Crosby’s request for leave to file a second amended complaint, entered judgment for Siordia and against Crosby, terminated the pending motions as moot, and closed the case.