Calvillo v. Marquez

Background

Carlos Calvillo, a state prisoner incarcerated at the Correctional Training Facility, filed this lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that Officer J. Marquez violated his constitutional rights. The court stated that Calvillo had been granted permission to proceed without paying the filing fee in a separate order.

Calvillo alleged that Marquez supervised a February 16, 2022 raid on his housing unit. Calvillo filed a prison complaint alleging that the raid violated COVID-19 protocols and named Marquez in that complaint. After the raid, Calvillo’s tablet was confiscated and he received a Rules Violation Report.

At the March 10, 2022 disciplinary hearing, Marquez served as the senior hearing officer. Calvillo objected that Marquez should not preside because Marquez had supervised the raid and was named in Calvillo’s complaint. Calvillo alleged that Marquez responded with profanity and racist statements, found him guilty, took away his property, identified him as Mexican Mafia, and imposed sanctions including the loss of credits.

Screening and Claims

Because Calvillo sought relief from a government officer while incarcerated, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires the court to identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also said that it must read pleadings filed without a lawyer liberally.

The court found that Calvillo had stated three claims:

- First Amendment retaliation: Calvillo alleged that Marquez retaliated against him at the disciplinary hearing because Calvillo filed a complaint after the raid. - Fourteenth Amendment due process: Calvillo alleged that Marquez acted as the hearing officer even though he had supervised the raid, issued the disciplinary report, and was named in Calvillo’s complaint. The court cited the requirement that a disciplinary decision-maker be sufficiently impartial. - Fourteenth Amendment equal protection: Calvillo alleged that Marquez made racist statements and indicated that he found Calvillo guilty because of his race.

The order did not decide whether these allegations were ultimately true or whether Calvillo would prevail. It decided only that these claims were sufficient to proceed past the initial screening stage.

Order

The court ordered that Officer J. Marquez be served through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. The order provided procedures for waiver of service and, if necessary, service by the United States Marshals Service.

The court ordered the defendant to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion within 60 days after service, unless the defendant informed the court that the case could not be resolved through such a motion. Calvillo’s opposition would be due 30 days after service of the motion, and any reply would be due 14 days after the opposition. The court also stated that discovery could proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The order warned that the case could be dismissed if Calvillo failed to prosecute it or comply with court orders. It also included notices explaining the evidence generally needed to oppose a motion for summary judgment and a motion asserting failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. Judge A. Westmore signed the order as a United States Magistrate Judge.