Chiprez v. Adame

Background

Froylan Medina Chiprez, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on alleged constitutional violations at Salinas Valley State Prison. The court had previously dismissed his original complaint with leave to amend. The amended complaint was the operative complaint reviewed in this order. Claims involving defendants at the California Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility had previously been dismissed without prejudice because claims based on events there belonged in the Eastern District of California.

In the amended complaint, Chiprez named Correctional Officers Franco and Carmona and two unidentified officers. He alleged that one unidentified officer held and forged a federal writ from February 15, 2018, until March 6, 2018. He alleged that another unidentified officer allowed a legal document to be opened and returned in a plastic bag with a mailroom notice. Chiprez claimed that these events contributed to the denial of his federal habeas petition as untimely. He sought an investigation rather than money damages.

Screening and Claims

The court reviewed the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires preliminary screening of a prisoner’s complaint seeking relief from government officials. The court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal right and conduct by a person acting under state authority.

The court held that, liberally construed, Chiprez’s allegations that the two Doe defendants withheld or tampered with legal documents appeared to state a claim for interference with his constitutional right of access to the courts. The court explained that destruction or confiscation of legal papers can violate that right when it causes a specific, actual injury to court access. Because Chiprez did not know the Doe defendants’ names, the court gave him an opportunity to identify them through the amendment process.

The court found that Chiprez did not allege specific facts showing how Franco or Carmona actually and directly caused the deprivation of a federally protected right. The court also noted that it was unclear whether librarian Colvin and other unnamed prison staff were intended defendants because they were not included in the caption or defendant list. If Chiprez intended to sue those people, he had to name them and connect each person’s actions to an alleged constitutional violation.

Disposition

The court dismissed without prejudice all claims against Becerra, Harris, Garland, Swenson, Urbanski, Gutierrez, McGinnis, Salerno, Muniz, and Poodry. It also dismissed without prejudice the claims against the listed Doe defendants identified as the Assistant Warden, Watch Commander, I.G.I., Mailroom Sergeant, B-Yard Captain, and B-Yard Sergeants.

The court dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend. It ordered Chiprez to file a second amended complaint within 28 days, using the required civil-rights form and including all claims he wished to pursue. The new complaint had to explain the basis for liability for each remaining defendant, identify the two Doe officers involved in the legal-document allegations, and state whether he had exhausted or was prevented from exhausting available administrative remedies. Failure to file the second amended complaint or correct the identified deficiencies would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice. The order also required Chiprez to keep the court informed of any address change and comply with court orders.