Hawthorne v. Kernan

Background

Carlos A. Hawthorne, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed a civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that prison officials placed him on suicide watch after he filed a grievance, confiscated a draft of his federal complaint and other legal materials, imposed a property-control measure, concealed or lost some of his property, retaliated against his litigation activity, and physically assaulted him.

The court reviewed Hawthorne’s first amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires preliminary screening of a prisoner’s claims against governmental entities or officials. At this stage, the court identifies claims that may proceed and dismisses claims that are legally insufficient, frivolous, malicious, seek relief from an immune defendant, or otherwise fail to state a claim.

Claims Dismissed

The court dismissed all claims brought under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 because those criminal statutes do not create a private right of action.

The court dismissed the following claims with prejudice, meaning the opinion states that amendment would be futile:

- In Claim 1, the Fifth and Sixth Amendment claims against Defendant Bensimon. - Claim 2, alleging that Defendants Fonesca and Yanez violated a Sixth Amendment right to counsel by reading attorney-client communications. - Claim 7, alleging a Sixth Amendment violation based on confiscation of writing materials. - Claim 8, asserting Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due-process violations based on the property-control measure. - Claim 11, asserting Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due-process violations based on Defendant Czajkowski’s alleged assault. - Claims 13, 14, and 15, concerning alleged due-process violations involving the loss or handling of property and a CDCR-22 form. - Claim 16, alleging a due-process violation based on Defendant Seman’s allegedly false statement about interviewing Hawthorne.

Because Claims 14 and 15 were the only claims against Defendant Pitts, the court dismissed Pitts from the action. Because Claim 16 was the only claim against Defendant Seman, the court dismissed Seman from the action.

The court also dismissed Claim 17’s deficient subclaims. It dismissed the Sixth Amendment subclaim with prejudice, determined that one access-to-the-courts subclaim duplicated Claim 12, and held that the alleged failure to follow prison procedures did not by itself state First Amendment or due-process claims. The order’s conclusion also dismissed defendants omitted from the first amended complaint, as well as Defendant C. Seman and Defendant A. Pitts.

Claims Dismissed With Leave to Amend

The court dismissed the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment portions of Claim 1 against Defendant Bensimon but granted Hawthorne leave to amend if he could truthfully allege facts showing that Bensimon caused or participated in the alleged constitutional violations.

The court dismissed Claim 12 with leave to amend. Hawthorne alleged that Defendant Stragalinos helped Fonesca and Yanez conceal his property, interfering with his access to the courts. The court found that the complaint did not allege that Stragalinos knew the property contained legal documents, but concluded that this deficiency could potentially be corrected.

Claims Found Cognizable

The court found that the complaint adequately stated claims that could proceed at the screening stage:

- Claim 3: a First Amendment retaliation claim against Fonesca and Yanez based on reading and confiscating Hawthorne’s draft federal complaint and reporting it to his mental-health treatment team. - Claim 4: First Amendment retaliation and access-to-the-courts claims against Czajkowski, Davis, Deal, Hagens, Swensen, and Thomas based on directing the confiscation of property, legal documents, and the draft complaint. - Claim 5: a First Amendment free-exercise claim based on confiscation of religious books and items. - Claim 6: a First Amendment free-speech claim based on confiscation of books and magazines. - Claim 9: an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against Czajkowski based on allegedly tight handcuffing, grabbing Hawthorne by the neck, pushing his head into a wall, and choking him. - Claim 10: a First Amendment claim based on Czajkowski’s alleged threat to beat Hawthorne if he cried out for help.

Finding these claims legally sufficient to proceed did not resolve whether Hawthorne would ultimately prevail on them.

Orders for Further Proceedings

The court allowed Hawthorne either to proceed on the cognizable claims or to file a second amended complaint within 28 days. Any second amended complaint had to include all claims and defendants he wished to pursue and could not add new, unrelated claims. If he did not file one, the first amended complaint would remain operative and the case would proceed on the claims found cognizable.

The clerk was directed to issue summonses, and the United States Marshal was directed to serve the complaint and order without prepayment of fees on G. Fonesca, A. Yanez, J. Czajkowski, J. Davis, B. Deal, L. Hagens, S. Swensen, and R. Thomas. The court also set deadlines for defendants’ dispositive motion, Hawthorne’s opposition, and defendants’ reply, and permitted discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.