Jurado v. Ramirez

Background

Robert Jurado, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed this lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute permitting claims against people acting under state authority for violating federal rights. The court reviewed his second amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires preliminary screening of a prisoner’s lawsuit against a governmental entity or official.

Jurado’s claims arose from a November 8, 2017 prison incident involving contraband and a rules violation report. He alleged that A. Ramirez did not issue the report until two months later, outside the 15-day period required by state regulations; that Fouch and Davis did not ensure timely issuance; that Lieutenant Sheldon denied him an independent investigator and rejected questions about prison records; and that appeals examiner S. K. Hemenway did not correct the disciplinary process. He claimed these actions violated due process.

Jurado also alleged that officials withheld legal property, including his lawyers’ address. He claimed this prevented him from communicating with his lawyers before a May 22, 2018 oral argument in his death-penalty appeal and contributed to his conviction and sentence not being overturned. He alleged that Lieutenant Ernst refused to look for or return the property and that Captain Avila declined to address the issue during a classification hearing. He further alleged that the property was disposed of in March 2020.

Due-Process Claims

The court held that Jurado’s allegations about the disciplinary report did not state a due-process claim. The court explained that violating state administrative regulations, by itself, does not deprive a prisoner of a protected liberty interest. It stated that the federal Constitution requires the procedures identified in Supreme Court precedent, including written notice, time to prepare, a written decision, witnesses and documentary evidence when appropriate, assistance in certain circumstances, some evidence supporting the decision, and reliable information underlying the disciplinary action. It does not require prison officials to follow every procedure provided by their own regulations.

The court therefore concluded that the alleged late issuance of the report, denial of an investigator required by state regulations, and failure to answer questions about prison records did not state cognizable due-process claims. It dismissed these claims with prejudice because Jurado had already been given an opportunity to correct the deficiencies and had not done so.

Access-to-the-Courts Claim

The court also considered Jurado’s claim that Ernst and Avila denied him access to the courts. Such a claim requires a prisoner to show actual injury—actual prejudice in existing or contemplated litigation, such as being unable to meet a deadline or present a claim.

The court found that Jurado had not shown actual injury. The materials attached to his complaint indicated that briefing for the May 22, 2018 oral argument had finished in March 2017, that his attendance was not required, and that he had an opportunity to file supplemental briefing afterward. The court stated that it was therefore unclear how his inability to communicate with counsel immediately before the argument prevented him from presenting a claim. Jurado also did not identify arguments that his lawyers should have presented but did not, and a 2021 letter from counsel did not show that the lack of legal documents interfered with counsel’s representation or communication with him.

The court dismissed the access-to-the-courts claim with prejudice because Jurado had previously been given an opportunity to correct its deficiencies and had been unable to do so.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action with prejudice, directed the clerk to enter judgment for the defendants and against Jurado, denied all pending motions as moot, and closed the case. The opinion includes a footnote explaining that the complaint names “Ralph R. Sampson,” but the court presumed that this was a typographical error because earlier complaints and the body of the complaint identified Ralph Sheldon.