Moore v. Hatton

Background

Johnny Andrew Moore, identified in the opinion as a California inmate, filed a complaint in Monterey County Superior Court. The defendants removed the case to federal court. The defendants identified federal-question jurisdiction based on Moore’s allegations under the Eighth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as a First Amendment retaliation claim. They also asserted that the remaining claims came within supplemental jurisdiction, meaning federal jurisdiction over related state-law claims. The defendants asked the court to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), which requires an initial review of certain prisoner complaints.

Moore named S. Hatton, K. Hoffman, and M. Atchley, whom the opinion identifies as officials employed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Moore alleged that construction of a building near interfaith chapels exposed inmates to potentially harmful materials and pathogens, including dust, asbestos, and other construction debris. He alleged that he became ill and that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his health and safety, meaning they knowingly disregarded a serious risk to his health.

Moore also alleged that defendants used subordinates to confiscate, lose, or destroy documents related to his case in retaliation for filing suit. He described cell searches on May 19 and July 21, 2017, and alleged that the later search involved intimidation, harassment, and removal of legal materials. He connected the incident to mental-health symptoms and asserted an intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim under state law.

Court’s Analysis

The court granted the screening request. It held that Moore’s Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim was barred by res judicata, also called claim preclusion. That rule prevents a party from pursuing the same cause of action against the same parties after a final judgment on the merits. The court explained that, in a prior related proceeding, Moore had brought the same Eighth Amendment claim against Hatton, Hoffman, and Atchley. The court had dismissed that claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because the complaint lacked enough facts to support a reasonable inference that the defendants were liable, and that claim had been dismissed with prejudice with judgment entered for the defendants. The court therefore dismissed the current Eighth Amendment claim as barred.

The court separately considered the First Amendment retaliation claim. It stated that such a prisoner claim requires allegations that a state actor took adverse action because of protected conduct, that the action chilled the prisoner’s exercise of First Amendment rights, and that the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. The court found Moore’s allegations insufficient because he made only a conclusory assertion that the defendants used subordinates to act against him, without identifying specific conduct by each defendant. He also did not allege that the searches failed to advance a legitimate correctional purpose. The court dismissed the retaliation claim with leave to amend, allowing Moore an opportunity to provide additional facts.

The court allowed Moore to reallege the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim in an amended complaint. It stated that if Moore failed to state a federal retaliation claim, the court would decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and dismiss them so they could be pursued in state court.

Disposition

The court ordered: (1) the defendants’ request for screening was granted; (2) Moore’s Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim was dismissed as barred by res judicata; and (3) the First Amendment retaliation claim was dismissed with leave to amend. Moore was given 28 days from the filing of the order to file an amended complaint using the court’s form, mark it “AMENDED COMPLAINT,” answer all questions, and identify the claims and defendants he wished to pursue. The court stated that failure to file a timely amended complaint would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice and without further notice. Moore could alternatively file notice that he wished to strike all federal claims and have the matter remanded to state court to pursue the state-law claim.