Corry v. Ju

Background

The court conducted an initial screening required when a prisoner seeks relief from a governmental officer or employee. Under that screening law, the court must 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 claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a constitutional or federal right by someone acting under state authority.

In his original complaint, Corry alleged that San Quentin prison guard J. Ju falsely accused him of stabbing another prisoner, leading to criminal and prison disciplinary proceedings. He also sued R. Feston, who oversaw the disciplinary proceedings, and M. Voong, who denied his appeal. The court previously dismissed the claims against Ju and Voong with prejudice, while finding Corry’s due-process and Eighth Amendment allegations against Feston plausible. Corry then filed the first amended complaint addressed in this order.

Claims in the First Amended Complaint

The first amended complaint named Ron Davis and Chris Johnson. Corry alleged that Davis, identified as the warden of San Quentin, was responsible for constitutional violations because he reviewed grievances. He alleged that Johnson, identified as his counselor, failed to perform paperwork that would have sent him to the general population instead of returning him to the special housing unit.

Court’s Analysis and Rulings

The court dismissed Corry’s allegations against Davis without leave to amend. It held that Davis’s role as a grievance reviewer was insufficient to connect him to an alleged constitutional violation. Reviewing or ruling on an inmate’s grievance, by itself, does not show that the reviewer caused or participated in the underlying violation.

The court dismissed Corry’s claim against Johnson with leave to amend. It identified several problems: Corry did not specify which constitutional right Johnson allegedly violated; he did not provide specific facts showing that a violation occurred; he had not established that Johnson had a duty to correct the housing assignment without a specific written request; and it was unclear whether Johnson had authority to change the assignment or set aside the disciplinary finding. The court also directed Corry to address whether he had exhausted his claims against Johnson.

The court noted that a motion for summary judgment filed by Feston raised factual and legal issues Corry would need to address later, including Feston’s assertion that the disciplinary charges had been reheard and reduced to a weapon-possession charge and that Corry’s sentence had been recalculated. The court stated that, if true, those facts would indicate that the litigation had no merit, but this order did not resolve those issues.

Disposition

The court dismissed the first amended complaint with leave to file a second amended complaint by July 20, 2020. The new complaint had to include all claims and defendants Corry wished to pursue and could not incorporate earlier complaints by reference. The court warned that failure to file a compliant amended complaint by the deadline would result in dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute.