Kocak v. Jiminez

Background

John Ivan Kocak, an inmate at Valley State Prison, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He sued Sherwin Jiminez, identified as a Correctional Training Facility officer. Kocak had been granted permission to proceed without paying filing fees in a separate order.

Kocak alleged that he filed a grievance against Jiminez on February 27, 2017, claiming that Jiminez refused to process his confidential mail. According to the complaint, the grievance succeeded. Kocak alleged that, in retaliation, Jiminez harassed and bullied him for six months by repeatedly banging keys on his cell door and flashing a light into his cell. Kocak alleged that this caused severe stress and anxiety, interfered with his sleep, caused daily panic attacks, and led him to seek psychiatric therapy. He also alleged that Jiminez conducted a retaliatory cell search and destroyed property, including his hearing aids.

Screening and claims

Because Kocak sought relief from a government officer while incarcerated, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening process requires the court to identify claims that may proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that it must read filings by people without lawyers liberally, while requiring enough factual allegations to make a claim plausible.

The court concluded that the complaint, read liberally, stated a First Amendment retaliation claim against Jiminez. A retaliation claim in this setting requires allegations that a state actor took adverse action because the prisoner engaged in protected conduct, that the action chilled the prisoner’s rights, and that the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.

The court dismissed the claim concerning the cell search and destroyed hearing aids as duplicative because Kocak was already litigating it in a prior related proceeding, Case No. 18-cv-2065-JST. The court further found that the remaining allegations did not state cognizable Fourth or Eighth Amendment claims. It explained that Kocak did not allege an unreasonable search or seizure, deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, or deliberate indifference to his safety. The court also stated that alleging psychiatric treatment alone did not establish an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim.

Order

The court ordered the Clerk to issue a summons and directed the United States Marshal to serve Jiminez with the complaint, its attachments, and the order without prepayment of fees. The court ordered Jiminez to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion within 91 days after the order was filed, unless he informed the court that summary judgment was not appropriate. It set deadlines for Kocak’s opposition and Jiminez’s reply and stated that no hearing would be held on the motion.

The court also authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, required Kocak to serve copies of his court filings on Jiminez or Jiminez’s counsel, and instructed Kocak to keep the court informed of address changes and comply with deadlines. The First Amendment retaliation claim therefore proceeded, while the court dismissed the duplicative claim and found no cognizable Fourth or Eighth Amendment claims. Judge Jon S. Tigar signed the order.