Hayes v. Josey

Background

Henry C. Hayes, also identified as Henry M. Mitchell, Jr., filed this prisoner civil-rights action concerning a package that prison employees refused because it exceeded the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s 16-ounce limit for standard mail. Hayes alleged that the package was Priority Mail and therefore was not subject to that limit. He named Z. Love, D. Wilcox, Jim Robertson, Ralph Diaz, and S. Josey as defendants and asserted due process and First Amendment claims.

The original complaint was dismissed because Hayes had not connected any particular defendant to the alleged violation. Hayes then filed a first amended complaint. The court had already dismissed the claims against Love, Wilcox, Robertson, and Diaz without leave to amend. It also dismissed Hayes’s due process claim against Josey without leave to amend, but found that Hayes’s First Amendment claim against Josey was legally sufficient to proceed. Hayes chose to proceed with that claim only.

Screening and surviving claim

Because Hayes sought relief from a governmental employee, the court screened the amended complaint under the federal prisoner-screening statute. The court explained that a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federal right by a person acting under state law. It found that the sole cognizable claim was Hayes’s First Amendment claim against Josey, who was identified as the Pelican Bay State Prison employee who drafted and signed the mail-disapproval notification.

The screening order did not decide whether Hayes ultimately would prevail. It determined only that the First Amendment claim could proceed beyond initial screening. The court stated that all other claims and defendants were dismissed and recognized the first amended complaint as the operative complaint.

Orders

The court ordered the Clerk to issue a summons and directed the U.S. Marshal to serve Josey, without requiring prepayment of fees, with the operative complaint, its attachments, and the order. The Clerk was also directed to send courtesy copies to the California Attorney General’s Office.

Josey was ordered to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion concerning the cognizable claim by January 11, 2021. If Josey sought dismissal based on failure to exhaust available administrative remedies, the court directed that issue to be raised through a summary-judgment motion. The order set deadlines for Hayes’s opposition and Josey’s reply, allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and required defendants to provide Hayes with notice explaining how to oppose a summary-judgment motion.

The court terminated Love, Wilcox, Robertson, and Diaz as defendants and stated that all claims against them were dismissed. It also warned that failure to prosecute the case could lead to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).