Hayes v. Josey

Background

Henry C. Hayes, also identified in the caption as Henry M. Mitchell, Jr., challenged a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation regulation limiting incoming standard mail to 16 ounces. He alleged that prison officials at Pelican Bay State Prison refused or returned a package that exceeded the limit. Hayes claimed the package was Priority Mail and therefore was not covered by the standard-mail limit.

The court noted that Hayes had previously challenged the same regulation in a prior related proceeding. The damages claims in that earlier round were rejected based on qualified immunity, and the claims for prospective relief were later dismissed for lack of jurisdiction after Hayes transferred prisons. The court warned that qualified immunity would likely be raised against Hayes’s damages claims in this case, while noting that Hayes disputed the defense.

Because Hayes paid the filing fee, the court also explained that he was not proceeding without payment of the filing fee and would be responsible for serving the defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.

Screening standard

The court conducted the preliminary screening required for a prisoner’s action against governmental officials under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At screening, the court must identify claims that are plausible and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also applied the rule that a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federal right by someone acting under state law.

Claims and analysis

Hayes alleged First Amendment and procedural due process violations arising from the handling of his mail. The court recognized that prisoners have a First Amendment right to send and receive mail, although prisons may impose restrictions reasonably related to legitimate prison interests.

The court held that, liberally construing Hayes’s allegations, he stated a cognizable First Amendment claim against S. Josey, whom Hayes identified as the person who drafted and signed the disapproval of the mail.

The court dismissed the First Amendment and due process claims against D. Wilcox based on Wilcox’s returning the mail instead of holding it during the grievance process. The court reasoned that Josey, not Wilcox, allegedly disapproved the package and committed the First Amendment violation. It further held that the alleged deprivation by Wilcox was random and unauthorized and therefore did not support relief under § 1983 when an adequate state post-deprivation remedy was available.

The court dismissed Hayes’s due process claims against Josey, Z. Love, and J. Robertson based on the same alleged arbitrary conduct, without prejudice to Hayes pursuing state-court remedies. It dismissed without leave to amend the due process claims against Love and Robertson based on their roles as grievance reviewers, explaining that reviewing a grievance or ruling against a prisoner does not itself cause or contribute to the underlying constitutional violation.

The court also dismissed without leave to amend Hayes’s First Amendment claim against Jim Robertson because Robertson was not alleged to have barred Hayes from receiving the package and acted only as a grievance reviewer.

The court dismissed with leave to amend Hayes’s First Amendment claim against Z. Love, which alleged that Love had authority to change the regulation and violated Hayes’s rights by failing to do so. The court found that Hayes had not plausibly alleged that Love had authority to change a regulation applying throughout the department.

Disposition

The court summarized its rulings as follows: all claims against D. Wilcox and J. Robertson were dismissed without leave to amend; Hayes’s First Amendment claim against Z. Love for failing to change the regulation was dismissed with leave to amend; Hayes’s due process claims against Love and Josey were dismissed without leave to amend; and Hayes’s First Amendment claim against Josey was cognizable.

The court directed Hayes, by May 18, 2020, either to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies in the claim against Love or to provide a written indication that he wished to proceed only with the cognizable claim against Josey. The order stated that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the action and entry of judgment for the defendants.