Salazar v. Rodriguez

Background

Magdaleno Salazar, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed this lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute that allows claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state law. The court was considering Salazar’s second amended complaint against San Quentin officers D. Campbell, Bermudez, Dooley, and Tynes. The complaint concerned events involving handcuffs and waist restraints, including allegations that Campbell and Bermudez knew about an injury to Salazar’s left hand and that Bermudez forced him to wear regular handcuffs. Salazar also alleged threats, intimidation, harassment, and retaliation, and requested an injunction, medical care and permanent authorizations for wrist braces and waist restraints, and punitive damages.

The court had previously dismissed Salazar’s earlier complaints with permission to amend. It had found that those pleadings did not identify the protected activity that allegedly prompted retaliation or connect that activity to the handcuffing incident. It had also found that the allegations did not state a cognizable excessive-force claim or explain how the handcuffing violated federal due-process rights.

Screening and Analysis

The court granted the defendants’ request to screen the second amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That statute requires courts to review a prisoner’s complaint against a governmental entity or officer and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.

The court held that the second amended complaint again failed to state a First Amendment retaliation claim. It explained that such a claim requires an adverse action taken because of protected conduct, an effect that chilled the prisoner’s exercise of First Amendment rights, and action that did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. The court found that Salazar had not identified protected conduct or shown how that conduct was connected to the events of March 5, 2018. The court further stated that verbal harassment and mere threats do not state a claim under § 1983.

Disposition

The court found that the second amended complaint did not cure the deficiencies identified in the earlier dismissal orders. It dismissed the action with prejudice because the complaint failed to state a cognizable claim for relief and denied further leave to amend. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment for the defendants and against Salazar and to close the case. Judge Jon S. Tigar’s order terminated the defendants’ screening request, identified as ECF No. 24.