Morris v. Ascencio
- William Orrick
- 3:20-cv-04923
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Morris v. Ascencio, Judge Orrick screened Morris’s prison complaint, recognized retaliation and fair-hearing claims, and ordered service and further motions.
Phillip Morris’s claims against San Quentin correctional officers Todan Ascencio and Tracy Jackson were allowed to proceed past initial screening; the defendants were required to respond, but the court did not decide liability.
What happened
In Morris v. Ascencio, Phillip Morris alleged that correctional officer Todan Ascencio filed a false disciplinary report to retaliate against him for filing lawsuits against prison staff at San Quentin State Prison. Morris also alleged that Lieutenant Tracy Jackson violated his right to a fair disciplinary hearing.
The court found that Morris had stated a First Amendment retaliation claim against Ascencio and a due process claim against Jackson. It ordered the clerk and United States Marshal to serve the complaint on both defendants without requiring Morris to pay fees.
Judge Orrick ordered the defendants to file a motion for summary judgment or another motion resolving the claims by January 25, 2021, and set deadlines for Morris’s opposition and the defendants’ reply. The order screened the complaint and allowed these claims to proceed; it did not decide whether Morris would ultimately prevail.
The detailed version
- Morris v. Ascencio · No. 3:20-cv-04923
- William Orrick
- Oct. 13, 2020
Background
Phillip Morris, a prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that his jailors violated his First Amendment and due process rights. The allegations concerned events in October 2018 at San Quentin State Prison.
Morris alleged that correctional officer Todan Ascencio filed a false disciplinary report against him in retaliation for filing lawsuits against prison staff. He also alleged that Lieutenant Tracy Jackson, who oversaw the later disciplinary hearing, violated his due process right to a fair hearing.
Screening and Claims
Because Morris sought relief from governmental officers, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires the court to identify claims that are legally sufficient and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also applied the rule that allegations in a complaint must contain enough factual matter to make a claim plausible.
The court concluded that, when read liberally, the complaint stated a First Amendment retaliation claim against Ascencio and a due process claim against Jackson. The order did not resolve the ultimate merits of either claim.
Orders
The court directed the clerk to issue summonses and the United States Marshal to serve the complaint, its attachments, and the order on Ascencio and Jackson without prepayment of fees.
The defendants were ordered to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion addressing the cognizable claims by January 25, 2021. If they sought dismissal based on Morris’s alleged failure to exhaust available administrative remedies, they were required to raise that issue through a summary-judgment motion. The order set deadlines for Morris’s opposition and the defendants’ reply, allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and gave instructions concerning communications, extensions, access to records, and opposition to summary judgment.
Judge William H. Orrick also warned that Morris was responsible for prosecuting the case, keeping the court informed of address changes, and complying with court orders. The order stated that failure to do so could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute. The court did not grant or deny a dispositive motion in this order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.