Hayes v. Josey

Background

Henry C. Hayes, also identified as Henry M. Mitchell, Jr., alleged that staff at Pelican Bay State Prison violated his First Amendment right to receive and possess mail. He alleged that, in February 2019, defendants interfered with that right by refusing him a package that exceeded the prison’s weight limit. The complaint named Ralph Diaz, identified as the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; Jim Robertson, identified as the warden of Pelican Bay; D. Wilcox, identified as a correctional captain; and Z. Love, identified as another Pelican Bay employee.

Screening and Legal Standard

Because Hayes sought relief from governmental employees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That statute requires the court to identify and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from a defendant who is immune from such relief. The court explained that a complaint must include enough factual matter to make liability plausible, rather than merely asserting that a defendant unlawfully harmed the plaintiff.

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983—the federal law that permits claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state authority—a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal right and conduct by a person acting under state law. The court also explained that liability must be based on each defendant’s own acts or omissions. A supervisor is not automatically liable for an employee’s conduct, and merely reviewing or denying an inmate grievance generally does not establish responsibility for the underlying violation.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that Hayes did not state plausible facts connecting any defendant to a constitutional violation. Hayes did not identify conduct by defendants other than Robertson with enough specificity, and the complaint did not show Diaz’s personal knowledge or involvement. The court therefore dismissed the complaint with leave to amend so Hayes could correct these deficiencies.

Motions and Disposition

Hayes moved to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court had ordered him to explain why that status was not barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), based on at least three prior qualifying actions or appeals. Hayes instead paid the filing fee. The court discharged the order to explain and denied the fee-waiver motion.

The court also denied Hayes’s motion concerning service on the defendants as moot. The complaint was dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint on or before December 16, 2019. The court required any amended complaint to include all claims and defendants Hayes wished to pursue and stated that failure to file a compliant amended complaint would result in dismissal of the action without further notice. The court discharged the order to explain, denied the fee-waiver and service motions, and directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions.