Cruz v. Ford

Background

Guillermo Trujillo Cruz, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this self-represented civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officer D. Ford. Cruz alleged that, while helping release inmates for afternoon yard time on October 29, 2019, Ford conducted an illegal clothed body search. Cruz alleged that Ford grasped the area around his pubic hair, pulled his pubic hair, and cupped and squeezed his testicles. He alleged that the search was malicious, intended to harm or offend him, and lacked a legitimate prison-related purpose. Cruz attributed the search to retaliation and an effort to cover up alleged sexual batteries by Officers Gutierrez and Kumbat.

The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires an initial review of prisoner lawsuits against governmental entities or officers. The court explained that a § 1983 claim requires an alleged violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by someone acting under state authority.

Eighth Amendment claim

The court held that the complaint stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Officer Ford. It explained that a prisoner may state such a claim when an official maliciously and sadistically uses force to cause harm, and that no lasting physical injury is required. The court concluded that, construed liberally, Cruz’s allegations about the alleged sexual assault and touching were sufficient to proceed.

First Amendment retaliation claim

The court dismissed the First Amendment retaliation claim with leave to amend. A prison-retaliation claim requires allegations that a state actor took adverse action because of the prisoner’s protected conduct, that the action chilled the prisoner’s rights, and that the action did not advance a legitimate correctional goal. The court concluded that Ford’s alleged effort to cover up other officers’ misconduct was not, by itself, retaliation for protected conduct. The court stated that Cruz could state a cognizable claim if he could truthfully allege that the search was retaliation for protected conduct, such as reporting the alleged sexual batteries. Cruz was given 28 days to file an amended complaint if he wished to amend that claim.

Other rulings and case procedure

The court ruled that the “three-strikes” provision in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) was inapplicable. It explained that the provision limits a prisoner’s ability to proceed without paying filing fees after three qualifying prior dismissals, unless the prisoner faces imminent danger of serious physical injury; it does not create a separate statutory right or claim.

The clerk was ordered to issue a summons, and the United States Marshal was ordered to serve Ford without requiring advance payment of fees. The order also set procedures and deadlines for later dispositive motions, including motions for summary judgment or dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and permitted discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order did not decide the ultimate merits of the Eighth Amendment claim.