Barno v. Padilla

Background

Rodney Bernard Barno, a California prisoner incarcerated at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state actors who violate federal rights. The court reviewed the complaint under the screening requirement for prisoner cases. Barno also moved for an order requiring prison officials to provide greater law-library access.

Barno alleged that correctional officers and other officials threatened or punished him for filing appeals, helping another inmate with a legal problem, and exercising his speech rights. His allegations included threats of false disciplinary charges, a disciplinary conviction and maximum punishment, tight handcuffs and exposure to cold conditions, punitive housing, a search of his living area, placement with an incompatible cellmate, interference with an outgoing letter, and theft of books of stamps.

Claims Allowed to Proceed

The court held that, liberally construed, the complaint stated a cognizable retaliation claim against Derrek Campagna, Alvin Saint-Louis, Gaylen Woods, Armando Padilla, and A. Kuster. A retaliation claim requires an adverse action by a state actor because of protected conduct, an effect that chilled the prisoner’s exercise of First Amendment rights, and the absence of a reasonable correctional purpose. The court found the allegations sufficient at the screening stage.

The court also held that the complaint stated a cognizable First Amendment claim against E. Lara based on the allegation that Lara marked up Barno’s outgoing letter so extensively that it could not be read.

Claims Dismissed or Subject to Amendment

The court dismissed Barno’s due-process claim concerning the disciplinary proceedings and denied leave to amend that claim because amendment would be futile. The discipline consisted of losing 20 days of time credits, 90 days of privileges, and 90 days of property privileges. The court concluded that these sanctions did not impose an atypical and significant hardship or inevitably affect the duration of Barno’s indeterminate sentence, so they did not implicate a protected liberty interest requiring the procedural protections for prison disciplinary hearings.

The court concluded that the alleged theft of stamps did not state a federal due-process claim under § 1983 because it was a random and unauthorized property deprivation and California provided an adequate post-deprivation remedy. The court also concluded that the complaint did not state a state-law claim because Barno did not allege compliance with California’s claim-presentation requirement. If he had complied with that requirement, he could file an amendment within 30 days identifying the state-law claim, the relevant defendant, and the dates of claim presentation and rejection, and invoking supplemental jurisdiction.

The court’s conclusion states that all other claims and defendants were dismissed. It ordered the clerk to issue summonses and directed the United States Marshal to serve the surviving claims on Armando Padilla, Derrek Campagna, Alvin Saint-Louis, Gaylen Woods, A. Kuster, and E. Lara.

Law-Library Motion and Case Schedule

The court denied Barno’s motion for greater law-library access. It reasoned that federal courts generally should not interfere with routine prison administration absent unusual and compelling circumstances, that special access would intrude into prison operations during the coronavirus pandemic, and that the requested relief appeared directed at nonparties because the named defendants were not shown to control the library schedule.

The court set deadlines for defendants to file a summary-judgment or other case-ending motion, for Barno to respond, and for any reply. It also gave Barno the required warning that a properly supported summary-judgment motion could end the case if he did not present evidence showing a genuine dispute over facts that could affect the outcome.