Moreno v. Peffley

Background

Anthony L. Moreno, a state prisoner confined at the Correctional Training Facility, filed this civil-rights action against Correctional Officers L. Mendez, D. Naranjo, and Joshua Peffley. He proceeded without a lawyer and had already received permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Moreno alleged that Peffley searched his cell on March 17, 2020, confiscated items, and then used some of them in a March 23, 2020 package intended to validate Moreno as an associate of the Mexican Mafia, also referred to in the opinion as “EME.” Moreno alleged that the package included a fabricated address book because there was no record that Peffley had confiscated one. He also alleged that Peffley denied him an opportunity to respond to the evidence, contrary to California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation regulations. Moreno said he raised these objections to Mendez and Naranjo at a July 7, 2020 Security Threat Group Classification Committee hearing, but they approved his validation anyway.

Moreno asserted claims under the Fourteenth Amendment for denial of due process and equal protection. He also claimed that the defendants violated the department’s regulations governing gang validation. He requested damages, removal of the validation from his central file, other relief, and appointment of counsel.

Screening standard

Because Moreno is a prisoner suing government employees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At this stage, the court had to identify claims that were legally cognizable and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires facts showing both a violation of a federal right and action by someone acting under state authority.

Due process

The court found Moreno’s due-process allegations insufficient. Before deciding what procedural protections were required, Moreno had to allege that the gang validation deprived him of a protected liberty interest—an interest involving a real and significant deprivation. Under the standard the court applied, that generally requires an unusually severe hardship compared with ordinary prison life or an action that inevitably affects the length of the sentence.

The complaint did not allege that the validation caused punishment or a significant hardship, such as placement in more restrictive housing. The court explained that, if the validation led to placement in the Security Housing Unit, Moreno would need to allege facts showing that the change created an unusually severe and significant hardship. The court allowed him to try to correct this deficiency in an amended complaint.

Equal protection

The court also found the equal-protection claim insufficient. Moreno mentioned equal protection in the same general discussion as his due-process claim, but he did not allege that he belonged to a protected class or that the defendants acted against him because of that membership. The court allowed him to try to correct this deficiency through amendment.

State regulations claim

The court said that a claim based only on violations of the department’s gang-validation regulations arises under state law and is not independently actionable under § 1983. However, the court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction—authority to hear a related state-law claim in the same case—if Moreno pleaded a sufficient federal due-process claim and included the related state claim in his amended complaint.

Appointment of counsel

The court denied Moreno’s request for appointed counsel because the circumstances he described did not amount to the exceptional circumstances required for appointment in a civil case. The opinion expressly states that this denial was without prejudice, leaving open the possibility of appointment later if circumstances warranted it.

Disposition

After screening, the court found the Fourteenth Amendment due-process and equal-protection claims deficiently pleaded. It granted Moreno leave to file an amended complaint by January 13, 2023, with the required caption, case number, and “AMENDED COMPLAINT” label. The court explained that an amended complaint would replace the original; claims or defendants omitted from it would no longer be part of the case. The order did not dismiss the complaint at that point. It stated that, if Moreno failed to correct all identified defects, the court might issue an order recommending dismissal of all or part of the complaint for failure to state a cognizable claim.