Smith v. Lopez

Background

Jason Smith, identified as a state prisoner, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officers of the Prison Investigative Services Unit at the Correctional Training Facility, where he was confined. His motion to proceed without paying the filing fee was left for a separate order.

Smith alleged that after an “institutional racial raid” on July 20, 2020, he sent letters seeking an inquiry or assistance for prisoners affected by the raid. He said that on August 18, 2020, he filed a prison grievance alleging constitutional violations. He later received correspondence from attorney Benjamin Pavone that was marked “Legal Mail – Attorney/Client Privilege.” The prison mailroom marked the correspondence “opened in error” with the notation “ISU Staff.” Smith alleged that ISU staff intentionally opened the mail outside his presence after learning about his letter and grievance. He sought declaratory relief, an order requiring corrective action, and damages.

Court’s Analysis

The court conducted the preliminary screening required for a prisoner’s complaint against governmental officers. At this stage, the court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a § 1983 claim requires an alleged violation of a federal right by a person acting under state authority.

The court recognized that prisoners have a First Amendment interest in having properly marked legal mail opened only in their presence. But it concluded that Smith had not plausibly alleged that the thirteen named ISU officers were personally involved in opening the specific item of mail. Smith made identical allegations against each officer, but did not otherwise mention them in his factual allegations or identify any of them in his exhibits. The court also noted that two guards identified in an attorney’s earlier letter were not named as defendants, and the record did not show that they worked in the ISU.

Disposition

The court DISMISSED the complaint with leave to amend. It gave Smith one opportunity to file an amended complaint within 28 days, using the court’s form and linking each named defendant to the September 29, 2020 legal-mail incident. The amended complaint had to include the case caption and number and the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. The court stated that the amended complaint would replace the original and that claims omitted from it would no longer be defendants’ claims in the action. Failure to file a compliant amended complaint within the deadline would result in dismissal of the action for failure to state a claim, without further notice.