Elliott v. Caballero

Background

Aaron Elliott, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against J. Caballero. The court had previously dismissed an amended complaint while allowing another amendment. Elliott then filed a second amended complaint.

Elliott alleged that he was improperly found guilty of several false disciplinary violations in retaliation for protected conduct. He stated that a December 2018 disciplinary matter involved possession of a cell phone and that the alleged retaliation was for refusing to be a prison informant. He alleged that he lost 120 days of good-time credits as a result. He also described a February 13, 2019 disciplinary finding for possession of drug paraphernalia. At that hearing, he said he requested pictures of the evidence and witnesses and that those requests may have been denied by Lieutenant Martinez, who was not named as a defendant.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the required preliminary screening for a prisoner’s complaint against a governmental officer. At this stage, the court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a § 1983 claim requires an alleged violation of a federal right by a person acting under state authority.

The court explained that a challenge affecting the lawfulness or duration of imprisonment generally must proceed through a petition challenging the imprisonment, while challenges to prison conditions may proceed under § 1983. Because Elliott alleged that a disciplinary finding caused the loss of good-time credits, the court needed more information to determine whether success on the claim would necessarily shorten his imprisonment. The court also explained that a prisoner seeking damages for an allegedly unlawful conviction or punishment generally must show that the conviction or punishment was previously overturned, invalidated, or otherwise set aside. The court stated that some of Elliott’s claims might be barred by that rule, while other aspects might continue in a civil-rights action.

For a prison-retaliation claim, the court described the required showing: a state actor took adverse action because of protected conduct, the action chilled the prisoner’s exercise of constitutional rights, and the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. The court noted that Elliott cited no cases showing that refusing to be an informant is protected conduct and stated that it had found no such authority. The court also could not determine whether there were two disciplinary hearings, what punishment followed each hearing, whether the loss of credits resulted from only one finding, or what other punishment was imposed.

Disposition

The court DISMISSED the second amended complaint with leave to amend. Elliott was ordered to file a third amended complaint by March 9, 2020. The amended pleading had to identify the defendants, explain how each defendant violated his rights, state whether there were separate hearings, and identify the punishment for each incident. It had to include all claims Elliott wished to present because an amended complaint replaces the earlier complaint. The court warned that failure to file the amendment could result in dismissal of the action, and that failure to prosecute or comply with court orders could also result in dismissal. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.