Herrera v. Ortega

Background

Joshua S. Herrera, a state prisoner at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That statute permits a claim for violation of federal rights by a person acting under state law. Herrera sued prison staff and an appeals examiner at the Office of Appeals.

The court had previously dismissed his original complaint and amended complaint in part, giving him opportunities to amend. Herrera then filed a second amended complaint. The order screened that complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires courts to review prisoner complaints against governmental entities or employees and dismiss claims that are frivolous, seek relief from an immune defendant, or fail to state a legally sufficient claim.

Herrera alleged that a confidential memo was falsely placed in his prison file. He said he filed an inmate grievance challenging the memo, that defendants tried to intimidate him into withdrawing it, and that defendants searched his cell in retaliation. He also alleged that officials denied his appeals and that placing and retaining the memo violated due process.

Claims and Rulings

Retaliation claim. The court held that Herrera could proceed on his First Amendment retaliation allegations against J. Ortega, R. Castillo, B. Duran, and R. Cardona. The allegations that they searched his cell because he refused to withdraw an inmate appeal, chilled his exercise of First Amendment rights, and lacked a legitimate correctional purpose were sufficient at the screening stage.

The court also allowed retaliation claims to proceed against M. Valdez and G. Bickham. Herrera alleged that Valdez denied his appeal at the second level and Bickham denied it at the third level, despite allegedly knowing there was no evidence supporting the memo and therefore lacking a legitimate correctional purpose.

Right to pursue prison appeals. The court dismissed the portions of claims 1, 3, and 4 asserting a constitutional right to file or obtain a particular result from a prison appeal. It explained that there is no constitutional right to a prison grievance or administrative-appeal system, and no constitutional right to a response or particular action on an appeal. The court also stated that California’s prison-appeal regulations create only procedural rights, not a constitutionally protected liberty interest.

Fourth Amendment claim. The court dismissed claim 2 for failure to state a claim. It held that a prisoner has no legitimate subjective expectation of privacy in a prison cell, so the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches does not apply within the cell.

Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim. The court dismissed claim 5 for failure to state a claim. Herrera alleged that the memo was placed in his file without adequate notice, an opportunity to be heard, and periodic review. But the court had previously instructed him to allege how the memo affected his confinement or otherwise caused a deprivation of sufficient seriousness. The court found that the second amended complaint repeated the earlier insufficient allegations. Because Herrera had already received an opportunity to amend, the court found no good cause to provide another opportunity.

Disposition and Next Steps

The order dismissed Herrera’s Fourth Amendment claim, the portions of claims 1, 3, and 4 concerning the right to pursue prison appeals, and his Fourteenth Amendment claim. It dismissed R. Mojica from the action because no cognizable claim remained against him and directed the clerk to terminate him as a defendant.

The action proceeded on the retaliation portions of claims 1, 3, and 4 against J. Ortega, R. Castillo, B. Duran, R. Cardona, M. Valdez, and G. Bickham. The court ordered those defendants to be served through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service process, with United States Marshal service for any defendant who did not waive service.

The court directed the defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion concerning the remaining claims within 91 days after the order was filed. It also set deadlines for Herrera’s opposition and the defendants’ reply, authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and provided other instructions governing communications, extensions, and prosecution of the case.