Pollard v. Davis

Background

Shawn Pollard, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that J. Davis, identified as a correctional officer at Salinas Valley State Prison, searched his cell in September 2020. According to the complaint, Davis found Pollard’s tools for fixing electronics, mistakenly treated them as weapons, and filed a Rules Violation Report. Pollard also alleged that he later learned Davis had altered one of the tools by adding a handle.

The opinion states that the court assumed the report resulted in a guilty finding and punishment. Pollard alleged that these events violated due process.

Screening decision

Because Pollard sought relief as a prisoner from a governmental officer, the court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening process requires the court to identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also said that complaints filed without a lawyer must be read liberally, while still requiring enough factual matter to make a claim legally plausible.

The court concluded that Pollard had stated cognizable due-process claims against Davis concerning the cell search, the Rules Violation Report and disciplinary charges, and the later guilty finding and punishment. “Cognizable” means the claims were sufficient to proceed past this initial review; it does not mean the court decided that Davis violated Pollard’s rights.

Orders

The court ordered service of the complaint on Davis through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program. It directed the defendant to respond to the claims found cognizable in the order.

The court required the defendants, by August 2, 2022, to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion. Summary judgment is a request for judgment without a trial when the material facts are not genuinely disputed. The order stated that a motion asserting failure to exhaust administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) had to be filed as a summary-judgment motion. It also warned that summary judgment or qualified immunity could not be granted if material facts were disputed.

The order gave Pollard 45 days to oppose any dispositive motion and gave defendants 15 days to reply. It allowed discovery under the federal rules, explained service requirements for Pollard’s communications with the court, and warned that failure to prosecute or comply with court orders could lead to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).