Smith v. Mendoza

Background

Jason Smith, identified in the opinion as a state prisoner at the Correctional Training Facility, filed a lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That statute allows a person to seek relief for violations of federal rights by someone acting under state authority. Smith sued personnel connected with the facility. The court stated that his request to proceed without paying the filing fee would be addressed in a separate order.

Allegations and Screening

The court was required to screen a prisoner’s complaint and dismiss claims that were legally insufficient, sought relief from an immune defendant, or otherwise could not proceed under the screening statute. Applying that review and reading Smith’s allegations liberally, the court found that his allegations were sufficient to state cognizable claims.

Smith alleged that I. Perez conducted a retaliatory cell search on September 24, 2018, after Smith threatened to report Perez for violating prison policy by watching television for personal use. Smith alleged that legal documents were stolen during the search. He also alleged that J. Mendoza moved him on November 15, 2018, to a cell with 14 of 20 windows missing, in retaliation for a grievance concerning Mendoza’s handling of inmate mail. Smith said Mendoza referred to his complaints and to a grievance Smith had filed against Perez.

Smith further alleged that R. Glaze, M. Zavala, B. Aguirre, and J. Ibarra refused several requests to repair the windows, leaving him exposed to cold and wet weather. He alleged that W. Sinkovich, an appeals examiner, received notice of the housing conditions but refused to have staff personally inspect the cell. Smith also alleged that similarly situated prisoners received physical inspections when they reported missing windows.

The court characterized the claims as involving First Amendment retaliation, cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, and unequal treatment under the Equal Protection Clause. The order found those allegations sufficient to proceed at the screening stage; it did not decide the facts or the ultimate merits of any claim.

Orders and Next Steps

The court ordered the clerk to mail the lawsuit, service-waiver documents, and the order to Correctional Officers I. Perez, J. Mendoza, M. Zavala, B. Aguirre, and Sgt. R. Glaze, as well as Appeals Examiner W. Sinkovich. The defendants were cautioned about the costs and timing of waiving formal service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.

No later than 91 days after the order was filed, the defendants were directed to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion addressing the claims the court found cognizable. A summary-judgment motion asks the court to enter judgment without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over facts important to the result. The order stated that summary judgment and qualified immunity could not be granted if material facts were disputed. Smith’s opposition would be due 28 days after the motion, and any reply would be due 14 days after the opposition. The court also permitted discovery under the federal rules and warned Smith that failing to prosecute the case or comply with orders could lead to dismissal under Rule 41(b).

Judge Beth Labson Freeman’s order therefore allowed the identified claims to move past initial screening, directed service-related steps, and set a schedule for a potentially case-ending motion. It was not a final decision on whether Smith’s allegations were true or whether the defendants violated his rights.