Lopez v. Thomas

Background

Andrew Lopez, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court stated that the original complaint had been dismissed with permission to amend, but Lopez had not filed an amended complaint. The court conducted the required preliminary screening of a prisoner’s complaint against government officials.

Lopez alleged that, on November 18, 2018, another inmate assaulted him and a friend without provocation, and that Lopez defended himself. According to Lopez, after the other inmate fell and Lopez stood several feet away, Correctional Officer Thomas struck Lopez in the low left buttock with a baton. Lopez alleged that the blow caused him to fall and left a black bruise for three months.

Lopez also alleged that he and his friend received identical Rules Violation Reports for fighting. Lieutenant Butcher found Lopez guilty at his disciplinary hearing, although the friend was found not guilty at a different hearing. Lopez alleged that Butcher falsified the record after viewing video of the incident. Lopez received a 90-day loss of time credits because of the guilty finding.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that a claim under § 1983 requires allegations that a federal constitutional or statutory right was violated by a person acting under state law. For an incarcerated person’s excessive-force claim under the Eighth Amendment, the key question is whether force was used in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or instead was used maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.

The court liberally construed Lopez’s allegations and concluded that he presented a cognizable excessive-force claim against Thomas. “Cognizable” here means sufficient to proceed past the initial screening stage; the court did not decide that Lopez had proved the claim.

The court concluded that Lopez had not sufficiently alleged a violation of the procedural protections for prison disciplinary hearings. It also applied the rule that a § 1983 plaintiff seeking damages for an allegedly invalid disciplinary result that caused loss of time credits must first show that the result was reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or otherwise called into question by a federal court’s order. The opinion stated that Lopez had not done so.

Order and Effect

The court ordered that Correctional Officer Thomas be served electronically at Pelican Bay State Prison. It dismissed without prejudice all other defendants and claims. The phrase “without prejudice” means the opinion did not bar refiling those claims, subject to applicable requirements and deadlines.

The court ordered Thomas to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion no later than 60 days after service, unless he informed the court that summary judgment could not resolve the case. It set deadlines for Lopez’s opposition and any reply, allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and warned that failure to prosecute or comply with court orders could result in dismissal under Rule 41(b).

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on November 30, 2021. The order was a preliminary screening and service order, not a final decision on whether Thomas used excessive force.