Guzman v. Jones

Background

Mayito Guzman, who was incarcerated at California State Prison–Solano when he filed the action, brought a self-represented civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning events at San Quentin State Prison. The court reviewed his amended complaint under the prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Guzman alleged that Lieutenant Dorsey wrote a February 8, 2018, Form 128-B stating that Guzman was in a position of authority to order assaults of other prisoners. Guzman alleged that the statement was false and led to his removal from non-designated outpatient-facility housing and his transfer from San Quentin to a less favorable prison, where he claimed he could earn fewer good-time credits. He alleged that Dorsey and Boerum violated due process, denied equal protection, and conspired to violate his rights.

Guzman also alleged that Allison and Tebrock implemented a statewide initiative that targeted general-population Hispanic prisoners with security-threat-group connections, removed them from San Quentin, and denied them placement in non-designated outpatient facilities. He asserted due-process, equal-protection, supervisory-liability, and conspiracy theories against those defendants.

Court’s analysis

The court dismissed the claims against Martin, Samara, Nguyen, Davis, Bloomfield, Hemenway, and Voong with prejudice because their alleged involvement consisted only of processing or denying Guzman’s prison grievances. The court held that prisoners have no constitutional right to an effective grievance or appeal procedure, and that denying a grievance generally does not make an official personally liable for the underlying constitutional violation.

The court dismissed Guzman’s due-process claims against Dorsey and Boerum with prejudice. It held that a prisoner generally has no constitutional right to remain in a particular prison, even if a transfer is disciplinary or to a less favorable institution. Therefore, the court concluded that procedural safeguards were not constitutionally required before the Form 128-B led to Guzman’s transfer.

The court found that Guzman’s allegations stated cognizable equal-protection and conspiracy claims against Dorsey and Boerum. His allegation that they facilitated or approved the transfer as part of an effort to remove Northern California Hispanic prisoners from the relevant housing population was sufficient at the screening stage.

The court dismissed the due-process claims against Allison and Tebrock with prejudice. It also held that Guzman had not pleaded enough facts to show that Allison and Tebrock acted with discriminatory intent in implementing the statewide initiative. The court dismissed their equal-protection and conspiracy claims with leave to amend, allowing Guzman to try to allege additional facts that would state plausible claims.

The court dismissed the John Doe classification staff representative without prejudice. It stated that Guzman could seek to amend the complaint to identify that defendant if discovery revealed the person’s identity.

Order

The amended complaint stated cognizable equal-protection and conspiracy claims against Dorsey and Boerum. The equal-protection and conspiracy claims against Allison and Tebrock were dismissed with leave to amend. The John Doe defendant was dismissed without prejudice. The due-process claims and the claims against Martin, Samara, Nguyen, Davis, Bloomfield, Hemenway, and Voong were dismissed with prejudice.

The court ordered the United States Marshal to serve the amended complaint and order on Dorsey and Boerum without requiring advance payment of fees. It gave Guzman 28 days from the order’s date to file a second amended complaint. If he did not do so, the existing amended complaint would remain operative and the case would proceed only on the claims found cognizable.