Moscoe v. Pelican Bay State Prison

Background

Matthew Ryun Moscoe, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed an amended civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The original complaint had been dismissed with permission to amend. The court reviewed the amended complaint under the prisoner-screening statute, which requires courts to identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, inadequately pleaded, or seek relief from an immune defendant.

Claims and analysis

Moscoe alleged that he repeatedly received expired, frozen, rotten, or moldy food. The court held that these allegations were sufficient to state a claim against Correctional Food Manager J. Williams. The court explained that food provided to prisoners must be adequate to maintain health and cannot be prepared in conditions that make it unwholesome or a threat to those who eat it. Moscoe’s conclusory allegations against correctional officers who delivered meals were not enough to state claims against those officers.

Moscoe also alleged that he did not receive complete meals for several days after filing an inmate appeal about his food. The opinion’s text is incomplete at this point, but the conclusion does not identify any meal-related defendant among those ordered to be served based solely on this allegation.

The court found that Moscoe did not state a retaliation claim based on Correctional Officer T. Farley delivering medication to his cell instead of handing it out at pill distribution. The court determined that this was too minor to qualify as an adverse action likely to deter protected speech.

The court allowed retaliation claims to proceed against Correctional Officer L. Pilgrim, based on a rules-violation report allegedly issued because Moscoe complained about the food; against Farley, based on a rules-violation report allegedly connected to Moscoe’s appeals; and against Captain C. Parry, based on moving Moscoe to another housing unit after he filed meal-related appeals and a lawsuit.

The court rejected Moscoe’s retaliation claim against Correctional Officer Shabbir because Moscoe did not show that Shabbir searched his cell and issued a rules-violation report in response to protected conduct. The court also stated that allegations about interference with legal mail and moving legal books were unrelated to the other allegations and could be pursued in a separate action.

Ruling and next steps

The court ordered that Parry, Farley, Pilgrim, and Williams be served at Pelican Bay State Prison. It dismissed all other defendants. The court directed the defendants to file a motion for summary judgment or another motion that could dispose of the case within 60 days after service, unless they informed the court that summary judgment could not resolve the case. Moscoe would have 30 days to respond, and defendants would have 15 days to file a reply. The court also allowed discovery and reminded Moscoe that he must keep the court informed of address changes and comply with court orders.