Bermudez v. Allison

Background

Raymond D. Bermudez, identified as an inmate at Corcoran State Prison, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against J. Allison and other correctional officials. He alleged that officials at Salinas Valley State Prison placed an “R” suffix on his custody designation after deciding that a police report concerning his commitment offense justified the designation. He claimed this violated 15 California Code of Regulations § 3377.1(b)(9), which, as described in the complaint, bars the suffix when an inmate was acquitted or found not guilty of sex-related charges. He characterized the officials’ conduct as “deliberate indifference liability negligence.”

The court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires preliminary screening of a prisoner’s complaint against a governmental entity or officer. The court explained that a complaint must identify a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and must allege that the violation was committed by someone acting under state law.

Reasons for Dismissal

First, the court found it unclear what federal right the defendants allegedly violated. The court said Bermudez might be attempting to assert an Eighth Amendment claim based on deliberate indifference to inmate safety, but he had not explained how the “R” suffix exposed him to dangerous conditions or alleged facts showing that the defendants knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm. The court explained that negligence or gross negligence is not enough to establish deliberate indifference.

Second, the court held that an alleged violation of the California regulation, by itself, could not support a § 1983 claim because § 1983 does not impose liability for violations of state law. To the extent Bermudez intended to assert a due-process claim, the court said he needed to explain how the regulation created a federally protected liberty interest. The court noted that an incorrect classification generally does not create such an interest unless it causes an “atypical and significant hardship” compared with ordinary prison life or inevitably affects the length of confinement. Bermudez had not alleged that the suffix required sex-offender registration or treatment, affected parole eligibility, caused unusually harsh housing, or produced comparable consequences. The court also said he would need to identify procedural protections, such as notice or a hearing, that were not provided.

The court further noted that the classification decision occurred in 2005 and that California generally provides a two-year limitations period for § 1983 actions. However, it did not decide that issue because the complaint did not clearly identify the injury Bermudez allegedly suffered. The court also stated that exhibits attached to the complaint appeared to contradict the allegation that Bermudez had been acquitted or found not guilty of sex-related charges; according to the court, the district attorney had declined to bring charges concerning the victim’s allegations.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Bermudez had 28 days from the date of the order to file an amended complaint using the case caption and number specified by the court and marking the first page “AMENDED COMPLAINT.” The amended complaint had to be complete on its own and could not incorporate the earlier complaint by reference. The court stated that failure to file a compliant amended complaint on time would result in dismissal of the action without further notice. Judge Thomas S. Hixson signed the order as a United States magistrate judge.