Patterson v. Alapisco

Background

Ronald Patterson, a California prisoner representing himself, sued two correctional officers at the California Training Facility under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against state actors for violating constitutional rights. He alleged that the officers targeted him and other Black inmates for cell searches when they smelled marijuana smoke. He also alleged that they retaliated against him after he asked to speak with a supervisor.

According to the complaint, the officers searched Patterson and his cell, found no contraband, and left some property missing or broken. Patterson was also required to provide a urine sample, which he refused. A disciplinary report was filed based on that refusal, but Patterson successfully appealed the discipline.

Equal Protection Claim

Patterson claimed that the searches violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause because the officers targeted Black inmates. The court held that the complaint did not allege enough facts to plausibly show intentional race discrimination. Patterson did not allege facts comparing the treatment of Black inmates with the treatment of non-Black inmates who were in similar circumstances when marijuana smoke was detected. The court therefore found that his statements that the officers were “targeting” Black inmates and “only” opening their doors were conclusions rather than sufficient supporting facts.

The court granted leave to amend so Patterson could provide additional facts, if he could do so in good faith, showing that the officers treated similarly situated inmates differently because of race.

First Amendment Retaliation Claim

Patterson also claimed that the search, urine-test requirement, and disciplinary report were retaliation for asking to speak with a supervisor. The court explained that a prisoner asserting retaliation must plausibly allege, among other things, that the defendants took adverse action because of protected speech.

The court found that Patterson’s allegations did not establish that connection. He alleged that the search began before he asked to speak with a supervisor. The complaint also stated that a different, unnamed prison official—not either defendant—ordered the urine test. Although Patterson argued that the disciplinary report could qualify as adverse action, the report stated that it was based on his refusal to take the urine test, and the complaint identified another officer as the person who wrote it. The court concluded that the timing of the report and the alleged anger of Defendant Alapisco did not plausibly show retaliation.

Disposition

Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The case was dismissed with leave to amend. Patterson was ordered to file an amended complaint within 28 days of the order’s filing date. The amended complaint had to use the required caption and case number, state that it was a court-ordered first amended complaint, and include all claims he wished to pursue because an amended complaint replaces the original complaint. The court stated that failure to amend within the required time and in the required manner would result in dismissal of the case in its entirety.