Hernandez v. I.S.U.

Background

Joseph Hernandez, an incarcerated person proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning events at Pelican Bay State Prison. The complaint challenged three principal matters: Hernandez’s placement in administrative segregation and the special housing unit based on a confidential information disclosure; security welfare checks conducted during the overnight shift while he was housed in the special housing unit; and prison officials’ handling of his grievances and request forms.

Hernandez alleged that the disclosure reported that an informant had identified him as possibly coordinating an assault on correctional officers, but that prison officials later determined the disclosure had been issued in error. He claimed that the disclosure lacked reliable supporting information and that his resulting segregation imposed an atypical and significant hardship. He also alleged that repeated, loud overnight welfare checks disrupted his sleep and harmed his physical and mental health, and that officials failed to correct the practice after he complained.

Claims Found Cognizable

The court found three claims sufficiently stated to proceed, subject to Hernandez addressing the joinder problem:

- The allegations against Kaufman, McBride, Bradbury, and Townsend stated a Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim concerning Hernandez’s placement in administrative segregation based on evidence allegedly lacking reliable indicators. The court explained that segregation may implicate a protected liberty interest when it creates an atypical and significant hardship, and that the placement decision must have some evidentiary support with some indication of reliability. - The allegation against Lacy stated a First Amendment retaliation claim. Hernandez alleged that Lacy, after being named in a staff complaint and a federal civil-rights complaint, refused to conduct an unbiased investigation of Hernandez’s grievance challenging the segregation placement. - The allegations against Turnell and Ramsey stated an Eighth Amendment claim concerning the security welfare checks. Hernandez alleged that Turnell refused to modify the noisy checks despite their effect on his health and that Ramsey failed to address the continuing problem after Hernandez appealed Turnell’s response.

Joinder Problem

The court ruled that the complaint improperly joined unrelated claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20. The claims concerning the confidential disclosure, segregation, and related retaliation arose from different factual and legal questions than the Eighth Amendment claim concerning the overnight welfare checks. The court required Hernandez to choose whether to proceed with the due-process claim against Kaufman, McBride, Townsend, and Bradbury and the retaliation claim against Lacy, or with the Eighth Amendment claim against Turnell and Ramsey. Hernandez could pursue the other claims in a separate action.

Dismissed Defendants and Claims

The court dismissed Bramucci, Royal, Sheldon, and Manion with prejudice because their alleged involvement was limited to responding to grievances or request forms, or to supervisory conduct. The court explained that an unsatisfactory grievance response generally does not make an official personally liable under § 1983, that prisoners have no constitutional right to an effective grievance process, and that § 1983 does not impose liability merely because one person supervises another. The court also dismissed with prejudice all claims based on correctional officials’ handling of Hernandez’s grievances or request forms.

The court dismissed Ducart, Parry, Short, Strain, Barneburg, and Bell with leave to amend because the body of the complaint did not identify specific actions or inactions by them that violated Hernandez’s rights. The court also dismissed the First Amendment retaliation claim against Kaufman and McBride with leave to amend because the complaint did not allege facts showing that they knew about Hernandez’s prior protected complaints or participated in the decisions to place him in administrative segregation or the special housing unit.

The court dismissed the John Doe defendants without prejudice. It explained that anonymous defendants generally cannot be served and stated that Hernandez could seek to identify them through discovery and then request permission to amend the complaint.

Required Response and Disposition

Within 28 days, Hernandez had to tell the court which set of cognizable claims he wished to pursue or file an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies and the joinder problem. The court stated that it would issue an order concerning service after receiving his response. Failure to respond or amend within the time allowed would result in dismissal of the action without further notice. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered the order on June 28, 2022.