Johnson v. Perez-Pantoja

Background

Glenn Johnson, an inmate at Correctional Training Facility–Central, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows claims for violations of federal rights by persons acting under state law. He sued CTF correctional officer I. Perez-Pantoja.

Johnson alleged that, after he filed an earlier related case, Perez-Pantoja retaliated against him by filing a false rules-violation report alleging that Johnson refused assigned housing and delayed a peace officer. Johnson also alleged that Perez-Pantoja searched his cell, destroyed personal property, and repeatedly threatened that Johnson would not live comfortably in the X-Wing Housing Unit because he had filed the earlier case.

Screening and Claims

Because Johnson was a prisoner suing a governmental officer, the court conducted preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires the court to identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant.

The court stated that, liberally construing the complaint, Johnson had stated a cognizable First Amendment claim and a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim against Perez-Pantoja. The opinion does not separately explain the factual basis of the first First Amendment claim, but it describes the retaliation allegations and applies the elements of a prison-retaliation claim.

Ruling and Next Steps

The court issued an order of service. The Clerk was directed to issue a summons, and the United States Marshal was directed to serve Perez-Pantoja without requiring advance payment of service fees. The court also set deadlines for Perez-Pantoja to file a summary-judgment or other dispositive motion, for Johnson to respond, and for Perez-Pantoja to reply. The order permitted discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and provided instructions concerning service of filings, address changes, extensions of time, and prosecution of the case.

Judge Jon S. Tigar did not enter summary judgment, dismiss the case, or decide whether Johnson would prevail on the claims. The order only determined that the stated claims could proceed past the initial prisoner screening and directed service.