Oliver v. Perez-Pantoja

Background

Anthony Wayne Oliver, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, meaning without a lawyer, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officers at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad. The court had previously dismissed his original complaint while allowing him to amend it. Oliver then filed an amended complaint.

Claims and Screening

The court conducted the required preliminary screening of a prisoner complaint seeking relief from government officers. At this stage, the court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from a defendant who is immune from that relief. The court also explained that a § 1983 claim requires an alleged violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by someone acting under state authority.

Oliver alleged that I. Perez-Pantoja, J. Mendoza, B. Aguirre, M. Zavala, I. Ibarra, S. Siordia, and D. Dunstan violated the First Amendment by retaliating against him for filing inmate appeals. He alleged that the retaliation chilled his ability to pursue grievances and lawsuits. The alleged adverse actions occurred while he was housed in the X-Wing, C-Wing, and Z-Wing from approximately August 2018 through May 2019 and included housing him with an incompatible inmate, an unjustified cell search, destruction of property, repeated cell moves, and obstructing access to the law library.

The court held that, construing the pro se allegations liberally, Oliver had stated sufficient facts to support a retaliation claim against the defendants. The order did not decide whether Oliver will ultimately prevail on that claim.

Orders and Next Steps

The court directed the clerk to send the defendants the required lawsuit notice, service-waiver materials, the amended complaint and its attachments, and a copy of the order. It instructed the defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion concerning the cognizable claims no later than 91 days after the order was filed.

If the defendants file a summary-judgment motion, the order requires supporting factual documentation and the warnings required by Ninth Circuit precedent. Oliver’s opposition is due 28 days after the motion is filed, and the defendants’ reply is due 14 days after the opposition. The court stated that the motion would be submitted on the reply deadline and that no hearing would be held unless later ordered. The parties may conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge Edward J. Davila also reminded Oliver to serve his court communications on the defendants or their counsel and to comply with court deadlines and orders.