Smith v. Mendoza

Background

Jason Smith, a state prisoner at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against personnel at that facility. The court had screened the complaint and found that it stated claims that could proceed. The court had then ordered the matter served on the defendants.

Smith filed a motion asking for clarification concerning Defendant J. Ibarra. Ibarra’s name had not been included in the earlier service order. The court determined that the omission appeared to have been inadvertent.

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.

Smith also alleged that J. Mendoza moved him on November 15, 2018, to a cell with broken windows, including 14 missing windows, in retaliation for Smith’s grievance concerning Mendoza’s handling of inmate mail. Smith said Mendoza referred to his complaints and knew about a grievance Smith had filed against Perez.

Smith alleged that he repeatedly asked R. Glaze, M. Zavala, B. Aguirre, and J. Ibarra to have the windows repaired, but they refused to act. He alleged that W. Sinkovich, an appeals examiner, received notice of the housing conditions but refused to have staff inspect the cell. Smith claimed that similarly situated prisoners received physical cell inspections, making Sinkovich’s treatment of him discriminatory.

The court concluded that, when liberally construed, these allegations stated potentially cognizable claims for First Amendment retaliation, cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, and unequal treatment under the Equal Protection Clause.

Ruling and instructions

The court granted Smith’s motion for clarification by ordering the clerk to serve the lawsuit, complaint, attachments, and related service materials on J. Ibarra at the Correctional Training Facility. The clerk was also directed to send Smith a copy of the order.

The court instructed the defendants to file, no later than 91 days after the order was filed, a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion concerning the claims identified as cognizable. The order provided additional instructions about service, summary-judgment procedures, deadlines for Smith’s opposition and the defendants’ reply, discovery, communications with the court, maintaining a current address, prosecuting the case, and requesting extensions of time.

This order did not decide whether Smith would ultimately prevail on his claims. It addressed service and case-management steps after screening. Judge Beth Labson Freeman signed the order, which terminated Docket No. 5.