Mackey v. Bloomfield
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:22-cv-05105
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Mackey v. Bloomfield, Judge Corley allowed one due-process claim to proceed, dismissed two claims, and allowed amendment of the third.
Mackey’s first claim against Correctional Counselor Della Baker was found cognizable. The court dismissed the second and third claims, dismissed Reynoso, Teixeira, Cuervos, Tafoya, and Warden Robert Broomfield, and allowed Mackey to amend the third claim.
What happened
In Mackey v. Bloomfield, Vincent Robert Mackey, a California prisoner without a lawyer, sued prison officials and a psychologist under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that false information about violent offenses was placed in his prison file, that a psychologist made false statements and wrongly assessed his risk of violence, and that he received improper disciplinary reports.
The court found Mackey’s claim against Correctional Counselor Della Baker about the prison-file information sufficient to proceed. It dismissed his claims about the psychologist’s assessment and statements, and his claim that Sergeant Baker issued inaccurate disciplinary reports, because those allegations did not show a violation of federal law or required procedures. The court allowed him to amend the disciplinary-report claim and said release from custody must be sought in a separate case asking for release, not in this civil-rights action.
Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley also dismissed Kristina Lee Anne Reynoso, Lieutenant Teixeira, Sergeant Cuervos, Correctional Counselor Tafoya, and Warden Robert Broomfield because Mackey made no allegations against them. Mackey had until October 28, 2022, to file an amended complaint.
The detailed version
- Mackey v. Bloomfield · No. 3:22-cv-05105
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Oct. 7, 2022
Background
Vincent Robert Mackey, a California prisoner proceeding without an attorney, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That law provides a claim for violations of federal rights by a person acting under state law. The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires an early review of prisoner complaints against government entities or officials.
Mackey asserted three claims:
- He alleged that Correctional Counselor Della Baker placed a document in his prison file in 2015 falsely stating that he had committed robbery and kidnapping. He said the document remained in the file after he requested its removal.
- He alleged that Forensic Psychologist Kristina Lee Anne Reynoso falsely assessed him as a high risk for violence based on a positive marijuana test and no evidence of violence.
- He alleged that Reynoso falsely stated in her assessment that he had traded sex for housing, and that Sergeant Baker prepared two erroneous rules-violation reports. He also sought removal of the allegedly false information, release from custody, and money damages.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that, when liberally construing Mackey’s allegations, his first claim stated a cognizable procedural-due-process claim against Della Baker. The court relied on precedent involving allegedly unsupported information placed in a prisoner’s record. Mackey did not allege that the other defendants were involved in this claim.
The court found the second claim not viable because Mackey cited no authority, and the court was aware of none, establishing that an erroneous psychological assessment violates the federal Constitution or another federal law. The court reached the same conclusion regarding Reynoso’s alleged statement about trading sex for housing. It also explained that Mackey alleged the parole board rejected the high-risk assessment and that due process in a California parole-eligibility proceeding requires an opportunity to be heard and a statement of the reasons for denial, not necessarily accurate information provided to the board. The court dismissed these claims without leave to amend.
The court also found that alleging innocence of disciplinary charges, without alleging a failure to provide constitutionally required procedures, did not establish a due-process violation. It therefore dismissed the part of the third claim concerning the two rules-violation reports, but granted leave to amend that claim if Mackey could make the required allegations in good faith.
The court further ruled that release from custody was not available as relief in a civil-rights action. Mackey would have to seek release in a new case through a petition for a court order addressing his confinement.
Because Mackey made no allegations against Teixeira, Cuervos, Tafoya, or Warden Robert Broomfield, the court dismissed those defendants. It also rejected liability based only on a supervisor’s responsibility for another person’s actions.
Disposition
The court dismissed the second and third claims for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. It dismissed Kristina Lee Anne Reynoso, Lieutenant Teixeira, Sergeant Cuervos, Correctional Counselor Tafoya, and Warden Robert Broomfield. It granted Mackey leave to amend his third claim by October 28, 2022. The first claim against Correctional Counselor Della Baker was identified as cognizable.
The order states that if Mackey did not file an amended complaint, or if the amendment was insufficient, “the second claim will be dismissed” and only the first claim would proceed. This wording appears inconsistent with the earlier dismissal of the second claim and the grant of leave to amend the third claim.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.