Salcida v. Thich

Background

John A. Salcida, identified as a state inmate, filed this civil-rights case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against employees at Salinas Valley State Prison, where he had formerly been incarcerated. He later filed an addendum identifying some defendants previously listed as John Does. The court accepted that filing as a supplement to the complaint and conducted its required preliminary screening. The court stated that it would address Salcida’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee in a separate order.

Salcida alleged four groups of claims based on events from June through October 2021. He alleged retaliation for exercising his speech and grievance rights, repeated cell searches, destruction of property, including ADA glasses, physical assaults, placement in administrative segregation, threats, and failures by supervisory employees to intervene or protect him. He also invoked the Fourth and Eighth Amendments and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Screening and Claims Allowed to Proceed

Under the prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court had to identify claims that were legally sufficient and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money damages from an immune defendant. The court construed Salcida’s allegations liberally because he was proceeding without a lawyer.

The court found that, when read liberally, Salcida’s allegations were sufficient to state First Amendment retaliation claims based on multiple cell searches, placement in administrative segregation, and property destruction. The court also found sufficient Eighth Amendment claims based on multiple alleged uses of excessive force between June and October 2021. The action therefore proceeds on those First and Eighth Amendment claims.

Claims Dismissed

The court dismissed the Fourth Amendment claim in the first group of claims. It explained that a prisoner does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in a prison cell, so the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches does not apply inside the cell. The court stated that the Eighth Amendment could provide a remedy for malicious or harassing searches unrelated to prison needs.

The court also dismissed the Americans with Disabilities Act claim in the second group of claims for failure to state a cognizable claim. The court found that the claim appeared to be based only on the destruction of Salcida’s ADA glasses. It found no allegation that Salcida had a disability covered by the Act or that he had been excluded from, or denied the benefits of, a prison service, program, or activity.

Service and Next Steps

The court ordered service on M. B. Atchley, John Thich, L. Martin, C. Medina, P. Estrada, F. Estrada, R. Mojica, R. Day, T. Lemon, E. Beam, Veronica Lomeli, and L. Ruiz. It directed the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to process electronic service and report which defendants would waive service. The United States Marshals Service would serve defendants who did not waive service or could not be reached through that process.

The court ordered defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion addressing the claims found cognizable no later than 91 days after the order was filed. It set deadlines for Salcida’s opposition and defendants’ reply, allowed discovery under the federal rules, and gave instructions concerning communications, extensions of time, prosecution of the case, and possible dismissal for failure to prosecute.

Disposition

The court dismissed the Fourth Amendment and Americans with Disabilities Act claims. It allowed the First and Eighth Amendment claims identified in the order to proceed, ordered service on the listed defendants, and directed defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or other dispositive motion.