Torres v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation

Background

Mario Torres alleged that events at Wasco State Prison and the Correctional Training Facility violated his rights. The alleged events included his placement in housing with the inmate population, threats by correctional officers, withholding of property, changes to his custody classification, and officials’ failure to address an error in his file concerning his release date. He brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation, denial of due process, and cruel and unusual punishment, along with California state-law claims described as negligence, intentional injuries, malice, fraud, and oppression.

The defendants moved to dismiss. The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to state a legally sufficient claim. The court generally treated the complaint’s material factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion.

Rulings on the Defendants and Facilities

The court held that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and California Correctional Health Care Services were state agencies protected by the Eleventh Amendment from suits seeking damages. It also held that those agencies were not “persons” that could be sued under § 1983. The court granted dismissal of Torres’s § 1983 claims against those agencies and dismissed those claims with prejudice.

The court held that the Correctional Training Facility and Wasco State Prison were physical buildings, not suable government entities. It granted dismissal of all claims against those facilities and dismissed those claims with prejudice.

The court also found that Torres improperly joined claims concerning events at Wasco State Prison with claims concerning different officials and events at the Correctional Training Facility. It granted the defendants’ motion to sever and dismiss Torres’s claims against M. Grewal and the unidentified correctional officers arising from the Wasco events. That dismissal was without prejudice, and the court stated that Torres could file a new complaint against those defendants in the Eastern District of California, which it identified as the proper venue for the Wasco-related claims.

Claims Against Creamer-Todd, Selby, and Robinson

For the First Amendment retaliation claim, the court stated that a prisoner must allege that a state actor took adverse action because of protected conduct, that the action chilled the prisoner’s exercise of First Amendment rights, and that the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. The court found that Torres did not allege that M. Creamer-Todd, T. Selby, and R. Robinson excluded him from the classification meeting or failed to address his file error because of protected conduct, and that he did not explain how their conduct chilled his First Amendment rights. The court granted dismissal of the retaliation claim.

For due process, the court found that Torres did not clearly identify a liberty or property interest from which the officials deprived him, or the procedures that the officials were required to follow but failed to provide. The court granted dismissal of the due process claim.

For cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, the court explained that a prisoner must allege an objectively serious deprivation and deliberate indifference by a prison official. The court found that Torres had not alleged facts supporting either requirement and granted dismissal of that claim.

The court allowed Torres to amend the retaliation, due process, and cruel-and-unusual-punishment claims against Creamer-Todd, Selby, and Robinson. It warned that any amended complaint would also need facts addressing qualified immunity, a legal protection for government officials unless their conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

State-Law Claims

The court held that California’s Tort Claims Act generally requires a person seeking money damages from a public employee or entity to first present the claim to the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board. The court took judicial notice of documents showing that Torres submitted a claim form in September 2018 and filed this lawsuit on July 3, 2019, more than six months later. Because Torres did not dispute those dates or identify a reason to excuse the delay, the court dismissed the state-law claim as barred by the six-month filing deadline.

The court allowed amendment if Torres could, in good faith, allege facts showing that waiver, estoppel, or tolling applied to the deadline. It also directed him to clarify which state-law claims he was asserting against Creamer-Todd, Selby, and Robinson and the facts supporting each claim.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed with prejudice all claims against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, California Correctional Health Care Services, the Correctional Training Facility, and Wasco State Prison. It severed and dismissed without prejudice the Wasco-related claims against Grewal and the unidentified correctional officers. It further dismissed without prejudice the claims against Creamer-Todd, Selby, and Robinson, and allowed Torres to file an amended complaint by February 28, 2020.