Smith v. Zavala

Background

Jason Smith, identified as a state inmate, filed a pro se civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison staff at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad. A pro se litigant represents himself or herself without a lawyer. Smith alleged that Correctional Officer M. Zavala used excessive force against him on August 26, 2020, in retaliation for a lawsuit he had filed against her. He also alleged that Zavala issued a false Rules Violation Report for the same retaliatory reason.

Smith alleged that Lieutenant J. Reed later presided over the disciplinary hearing, denied him witnesses, and found him guilty of a lesser charge while stating, “I have to find you guilty of something, you have a 602 against Zavala.” Smith alleged that Reed and Zavala acted together in retaliation for his petitioning the government to address his grievances. He also alleged that K. Mensing, the Acting Chief Deputy Warden, denied his appeal and attempted to cover up or acquiesced in Zavala’s conduct. Smith sought injunctive and declaratory relief and damages.

Screening standard

Because Smith was a prisoner seeking relief from governmental employees, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court had to identify claims that failed to state a claim for relief or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also stated that it must read self-represented pleadings liberally.

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a constitutional or federal statutory right was violated and that the violation was committed by a person acting under state law.

Claims the court found cognizable

The court held that Smith’s allegations were sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against Zavala. Smith alleged that Zavala grabbed his left wrist, drove her elbow into his upper back, handcuffed him, and intentionally jerked his handcuffed hands while he was not resisting and was complying with orders.

The court also held that Smith had adequately alleged First Amendment retaliation claims against Zavala, Reed, and Mensing. As to Zavala, the alleged retaliatory acts were the use of excessive force and issuance of a false Rules Violation Report after Smith filed a lawsuit against her. As to Reed, the alleged retaliatory act was finding Smith guilty of the Rules Violation Report, even though the charge was lesser, because Smith had filed a grievance against Zavala. As to Mensing, the alleged retaliatory act was denying Smith’s appeal because of his lawsuit against Zavala.

Claims dismissed with leave to amend

The court found Smith’s disciplinary-proceeding due-process claim against Reed insufficient. Smith alleged that Reed denied him witnesses, but he did not describe the sanctions imposed after the finding of guilt. The court explained that the procedural protections described in Wolff v. McDonnell apply only in circumstances involving sufficiently serious discipline and a liberty interest of real substance. The court also stated that Smith needed to allege facts showing that allowing the requested witnesses would not have been unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals. The court granted leave to amend this claim.

The court also found Smith’s Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against Mensing insufficient. The court assumed, for purposes of its analysis, that such a claim could involve violence by prison officers, but found no facts showing that Mensing knew Zavala intended to harm Smith or acquiesced in the alleged use of force and failed to take steps to prevent it. The court stated that an alleged cover-up, even if true, did not by itself violate Smith’s Eighth Amendment rights. The court granted leave to amend this claim if Smith could do so in good faith.

Finally, the court found the alleged municipal-liability claim insufficient. Municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services concerns a constitutional violation caused by an official municipal policy or custom. The court explained that the proper defendant for such a claim is a municipality, such as a city or county, and that a plaintiff must identify the policy and show that it caused the constitutional violation. Smith’s allegations about Mensing’s one-time conduct concerning Zavala did not establish a policy, custom, practice, or procedure. The court granted leave to amend this claim against an appropriate defendant if Smith could do so in good faith.

Order

The court ordered that the complaint stated cognizable claims for excessive force against Zavala and retaliation against Zavala, Reed, and Mensing. It ordered that the remainder of Smith’s claims be dismissed with leave to amend. Smith had 28 days from the filing of the order to file an amended complaint correcting the identified deficiencies.

The court also allowed Smith, instead of amending, to notify the court that he wished to proceed only on the cognizable claims and to strike the other claims. The court stated that it would then order the complaint served on the defendants based on those claims. If Smith failed to respond as directed, the case would proceed solely on the cognizable claims, and the other claims would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Smith’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee was to be addressed in a separate order.