Smith v. Daguio

Background

Jason Smith, identified as a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officers at the Correctional Training Facility. The court had previously dismissed his original complaint with leave to amend, and Smith filed an amended complaint.

Smith alleged that M. Daguio denied him access to the law library on January 23, 2018. He alleged that, after he told Daguio he intended to file a grievance, Daguio threatened to assign him a cellmate or move him from his unit. Smith alleged that R. Avalos later told him he was being assigned a cellmate and that objections would lead to a disciplinary report. Smith said he received that report after refusing to house with the inmate.

Smith also alleged that Avalos treated him differently from another prisoner in a similar housing situation. He alleged that C. Peaden approved the disciplinary report without making personal inquiries. At the disciplinary hearing before B. Greer, Smith was found guilty and lost several privileges for 30 days and 61 days of good-time credits. Smith alleged that he was denied the right to call a witness and that later rehearings also violated his procedural due-process rights.

Screening standard

Because Smith was a prisoner suing governmental officers, the court was required to screen the amended complaint. The court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. It also explained that a § 1983 claim requires an alleged violation of a federal right by a person acting under state law.

Claims and rulings

Access to the courts. The court dismissed this claim for failure to state a claim. A prisoner must allege that an inadequate legal-access program caused actual injury by hindering a nonfrivolous claim involving the prisoner’s conviction or prison conditions. The court noted that Smith said he filed his grievance despite Daguio’s alleged threat. The court therefore found that Smith had not alleged the required actual injury. The claim was dismissed with prejudice in the order’s conclusion.

Retaliation. The court found cognizable Smith’s allegations that Daguio and Avalos took adverse action against him because he engaged in protected conduct. Smith alleged that the actions chilled his First Amendment rights and did not advance a legitimate correctional goal. The retaliation claims were allowed to proceed.

Due process. The court treated Smith’s challenge to the disciplinary proceedings as a possible procedural due-process claim. Because the disciplinary finding caused the loss of time credits, and restoring those credits would necessarily result in a speedier release, the court said the claim belonged in a separate petition challenging the legality of his custody. The court also stated that Smith could seek damages under § 1983 only after the disciplinary finding had been reversed and the credits restored. The due-process claim was dismissed for filing as a separate habeas action.

Equal protection. The court dismissed this claim for failure to state a claim. Smith alleged that he was treated differently from a similarly situated prisoner concerning housing compatibility, but the court found that he offered only a conclusory statement and did not adequately identify prisoners who were similarly situated. The claim was dismissed with prejudice in the order’s conclusion.

Disposition and next steps

The court directed the clerk to serve Daguio and Avalos with notice of the lawsuit and related papers. It terminated Lt. Brian Greer and Lt. C. Peaden from the action because all claims against them had been dismissed. The remaining defendants were ordered to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion concerning the cognizable claims within 91 days after the order was filed. The order also set deadlines for Smith’s opposition and the defendants’ reply and allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.