Bess v. Peffley

Background

Daniel Bess, identified as a California prisoner, filed a civil-rights complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against correctional officer J. Peffley at the Correctional Training Facility. The opinion states that Bess’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee was granted in a separate order.

Bess alleged that Peffley threatened and endangered him when Bess refused to become a confidential informant. Bess also alleged that Peffley retaliated against him for refusing and for filing administrative grievances.

Screening standard

Because Bess is a prisoner suing a government officer, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under that statute, the court must identify claims that can proceed or dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that it must read a complaint filed without a lawyer liberally, while requiring enough facts to make the requested relief plausible rather than speculative.

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law and a violation committed by a person acting under state authority.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that Bess’s allegations, when read liberally, stated a cognizable claim that Peffley violated Bess’s Eighth Amendment right to personal safety by threatening and endangering him after his refusal to become a confidential informant.

The court also concluded that Bess’s allegations stated cognizable First Amendment retaliation claims based on the refusal and the filing of administrative grievances.

The order did not resolve whether Peffley was liable or whether Bess would prevail. It determined only that the complaint could proceed past initial screening.

Order and next steps

The court ordered that J. Peffley be served at the California Training Facility in Soledad, California. Service was to proceed through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. The order directed the clerk, the department, the California Attorney General’s Office, and the United States Marshals Service to take specified steps depending on whether Peffley waived service.

Peffley was ordered to file a magistrate-judge jurisdiction consent form within 28 days after the service-waiver report was filed and to file an answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order also required Peffley, within 91 days after the order was issued, to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion, or to inform the court if the case could not be resolved through summary judgment. Bess’s opposition would be due 28 days after the motion, and Peffley’s reply would be due 14 days later. The court stated that no hearing would be held unless it later ordered one.

The court allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and reminded Bess that he was responsible for prosecuting the case, keeping the court informed of address changes, and complying with court orders. The order warned that failure to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.