Herrera v. Ortega

Background

Joshua S. Herrera, identified as a state prisoner at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed this self-represented civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison staff and an appeals examiner. The court stated that it would address Herrera’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee in a separate order.

Because Herrera sought relief from government employees, the court conducted the required preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At this stage, the court had to dismiss claims that did not state a claim on which relief could be granted or that sought money from an immune defendant. The court also said that it would read a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally.

Claims and Analysis

Herrera alleged that J. Ortega, R. Castillo, B. Duran, and R. Cardona conducted a retaliatory cell search on June 11, 2019, after he refused to withdraw a grievance challenging the placement of a confidential memo in his file. He alleged that R. Castillo authored the memo and R. Mojica reviewed and approved it. He described the memo as a false and defamatory accusation.

First Amendment retaliation. The court found that Herrera had not alleged enough facts to show that the actions by Ortega, Castillo, Duran, and Cardona chilled his exercise of First Amendment rights or lacked a legitimate correctional purpose. The court dismissed this retaliation claim with leave to amend. Herrera also alleged that M. Valdez and G. Bickham retaliated against him by refusing or declining to grant prison appeals. The court found those allegations insufficient as well, but said Herrera could attempt to state a retaliation claim against those defendants in an amended complaint. The court warned that he must have separately completed the prison grievance process for those retaliation claims before filing suit; otherwise, those claims would be subject to dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Eighth Amendment. The court dismissed Herrera’s claim that keeping the allegedly false memo in his file amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. It found his alleged effects on parole and court proceedings conclusory and speculative, and found no allegation that the memo caused inhumane prison conditions.

Due process and prison appeals. The court dismissed Herrera’s claim concerning the denial of his administrative appeals. It explained that the cited California regulations created a procedural right to have a prison appeal, not a right to a particular response or result. The court found that Herrera had received the appeals process and that his disagreement with the results did not itself establish a constitutional violation.

Slander and defamation. The court dismissed the claims based on Castillo’s authorship of the memo and Mojica’s approval of it. It held that defamation alone does not create a constitutional claim under § 1983, even when the conduct is carried out under state authority.

Order

The court dismissed the Eighth Amendment, due process, slander, and defamation claims for failure to state cognizable claims. It dismissed the First Amendment retaliation claim with leave to amend. Herrera had 28 days from the filing of the order to submit an amended complaint on the court’s form, using the required case caption and case number. The order stated that the amended complaint would replace the original complaint, and that claims or defendants omitted from it would no longer be part of the action. If Herrera did not amend within the time allowed, the action would be dismissed without prejudice and without further notice. Judge Beth Labson Freeman signed the order.