Hash v. Giacomazzi

Background

Lawrence G. Hash, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against numerous prison staff members at San Quentin State Prison and other individuals. After the court screened his original complaint, it dismissed some claims with permission to amend and instructed Hash to bring claims challenging certain disciplinary proceedings in separate petitions challenging his imprisonment. Hash then filed a 124-page amended complaint naming 109 defendants and attaching 175 pages of exhibits.

Screening standard

Under the federal prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court had to identify claims that were legally sufficient and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also had to read Hash’s filings liberally because he was proceeding without a lawyer. To state a claim under § 1983, Hash had to allege both a violation of a constitutional or federal legal right and action by a person acting under state authority.

Disciplinary-proceeding claims

Claims 1, 2, and 4 challenged disciplinary reports issued by M. Giacomazzi. Claims 1 and 2 concerned five reports from February 2016 involving allegations that Hash authored threatening notes against staff members and their families. Hash alleged inadequate notice and the use of unreliable confidential and non-confidential information. Claim 4 challenged another report, issued on March 5, 2016, concerning possession of a deadly weapon. The disciplinary proceedings resulted in the loss of time credits.

The court had previously explained that challenges to disciplinary findings resulting in the loss of time credits must be brought in a petition challenging the prisoner’s confinement when restoring those credits would necessarily lead to earlier release. It also explained that a damages claim for the loss of credits could proceed only after Hash prevailed in such a petition. Because Hash repeated the same challenges in his amended complaint, the court dismissed claims 1, 2, and 4 without prejudice to pursuing them in separate petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court stated that the five reports challenged in claims 1 and 2 and the report challenged in claim 4 had to be addressed in separate petitions because they involved separate and unrelated events.

Retaliation claim

In claim 3, Hash alleged that M. Giacomazzi, P. G. Hannah, C. Bass, and C. Fry searched his cell on February 4, 2016, because he had filed inmate appeals, staff complaints, and lawsuits against law-enforcement officers. He alleged that the defendants threatened to place him in disciplinary housing and transfer him to another prison. He further alleged that D. Petrovic, Daryl Dorsey, and Giacomazzi threatened to move him to the Adjustment Center and did move him there.

Reading the allegations liberally, the court found that Hash stated a retaliation claim against Giacomazzi, Hannah, Bass, Fry, Petrovic, and Dorsey. The court also accepted supplemental jurisdiction over Hash’s state-law claims. However, it dismissed the part of his requested relief seeking expungement and removal of the challenged disciplinary reports because that relief had to be sought in the separate petitions challenging those reports.

Excessive-force claim

Hash alleged that Hannah and Giacomazzi used excessive force during the February 4, 2016 cell search while he was handcuffed. He provided no further description of what they did or why the force was excessive. The court held that this single-sentence allegation did not adequately allege that the force was applied maliciously and sadistically to cause harm rather than in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline. Because Hash had already received an opportunity to amend this claim, the court dismissed the excessive-force claim for failure to state a claim.

Disposition and next steps

The court ordered that the action proceed solely on the retaliation claim against Giacomazzi, Hannah, Bass, Fry, Petrovic, and Dorsey, and directed the clerk to terminate all other defendants. It ordered service of the case on those six defendants through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service process for prisoner civil-rights cases. It directed the defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion within 91 days after the order was filed. The order also set deadlines for Hash’s response and the defendants’ reply and stated that no hearing would be held unless the court later ordered one.