Johnson v. Cuevas

Background

Paul David Johnson, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case had been dismissed because the court did not receive his filing-fee payment by the deadline. The payment was later docketed, and Johnson showed that he had made a good-faith effort to pay on time.

The court therefore granted Johnson’s motions for reconsideration, vacated the earlier dismissal and judgment, and reopened the case. It then screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires courts to review prisoner complaints and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.

Claims and analysis

Johnson alleged that Sergeant A. Cuevas retaliated against him for filing prison grievances and “this lawsuit” by refusing to provide information about correctional-officer uniforms and badges and about an X-ray security-screening machine. The court found that the refusal could not have been caused by the 2021 lawsuit because the alleged conduct occurred more than two years after a 2018 family visit. It also found no allegations connecting the refusal to Johnson’s administrative grievances; the complaint appeared to allege that the refusal came before those grievances. The court concluded that Johnson did not plausibly allege First Amendment retaliation. It further concluded that the California-law retaliation claim was not cognizable under § 1983, which provides a remedy for violations of federal rights, not state-law violations.

For the equal-protection claim, Johnson alleged that other prisoners received information relevant to their issues. The court found that prisoners who requested different information were not similarly situated for this claim, and Johnson did not allege that other prisoners received the same information that Cuevas refused to provide. The court therefore found no cognizable equal-protection claim.

Johnson also alleged that other defendants, identified as Cuevas’s supervisors, failed to train and supervise him. The court treated this claim as dependent on the claims against Cuevas and found no basis for supervisor liability because Johnson had not adequately alleged that Cuevas violated his constitutional rights.

Finally, Johnson alleged severe emotional distress. The court applied 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e), which limits a prisoner’s recovery for mental or emotional injuries suffered while incarcerated unless the prisoner first shows a physical injury. Because Johnson alleged no physical injury caused by the defendants, the court found that this claim did not state a cognizable claim for relief under § 1983.

Ruling

Judge Jeffrey S. White granted the motions for reconsideration, vacated the earlier order of dismissal and judgment, and reopened the case. The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Johnson was allowed 28 days from the filing of the order to submit an amended complaint curing the identified deficiencies. The order stated that the amended complaint had to include all claims Johnson wished to pursue and could not incorporate the original complaint by reference. It also stated that failure to amend as directed could result in dismissal of the case.