Moreno v. Perez-Pantoja

Background

Paul Anthony Moreno, a California state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court stated that it granted Moreno permission to proceed without paying the filing fee in a separate order.

The court conducted the preliminary screening required for prisoner cases under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires the court to identify claims that may proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, insufficiently pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also stated that it must read complaints filed without a lawyer liberally.

Claims

Moreno alleged that Correctional Officer I. Perez-Pantoja violated his First Amendment rights by destroying Moreno’s property and failing to follow COVID-19 protocols while searching Moreno’s cell. Moreno alleged that these actions were retaliation for his filing an administrative grievance against another prison official.

Moreno also alleged that Perez-Pantoja violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to follow the protocols, including by not wearing a mask, and thereby endangering Moreno’s health and safety.

Ruling and next steps

The court held that, when liberally construed, Moreno’s claims were cognizable under § 1983. A cognizable claim is one that is legally sufficient to proceed past the initial screening stage. The court did not decide the ultimate truth of the allegations or whether Moreno will win.

The court ordered that Perez-Pantoja be served at Salinas Valley State Prison through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic service process. The defendant was ordered to file an answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Within 84 days after the order was filed, the defendant was ordered to file one comprehensive motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion addressing the cognizable claims, unless the defendant informed the court that the case could not be resolved by summary judgment. The order also set deadlines for Moreno’s opposition and the defendant’s reply and allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court reminded Moreno that he is responsible for prosecuting the case, keeping the court informed of address changes, and complying with court orders. Failure to do so may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. The order was signed by Susan Van Keulen, United States Magistrate Judge.