Bush v. Borla

Background

Joel B. Bush, identified as a state prisoner and proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials at Salinas Valley State Prison. After the court dismissed his original complaint with permission to amend, Bush filed an amended complaint.

Bush alleged that an allegedly unfounded accusation of sexual assault by a transgender inmate led to his placement and continued confinement in administrative segregation for 72 days without due process. He alleged that E. Borla, M. Wade, J. Antonio, E. McCay, G. Vega, and V. Lizaola caused or participated in that confinement. He also asserted equal-protection, conspiracy, state-law defamation, intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress, and damages claims.

Screening standard

Because Bush sought relief as a prisoner from government officials, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a § 1983 claim requires an alleged violation of a federal right by someone acting under state authority.

Claims allowed to proceed

The court found that the amended complaint stated a due-process claim against Borla, Wade, and Lizaola based on prolonged retention in administrative segregation without due process. The court also found that Bush stated a state-law intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim against those three defendants.

Claims dismissed

The court dismissed the equal-protection claim against all defendants. Bush attempted to proceed under a “class of one” theory, but the court found that he did not adequately identify similarly situated prisoners who received different treatment.

The court dismissed the conspiracy claim against Vega, Antonio, and McCay. It found no factual allegations showing that Vega participated in the decision to keep Bush in administrative segregation, that Antonio and McCay were involved in his continued retention, or that these defendants had reached an unlawful agreement with Borla, Wade, and Lizaola. The court considered a conspiracy claim against Borla, Wade, and Lizaola superfluous because the underlying due-process and emotional-distress claims already proceeded against them.

The court dismissed the state-law defamation claim against Antonio and McCay. Bush relied on another officer’s apparent knowledge of the lock-up order, but the court found no allegation that Antonio or McCay disclosed the order to that officer or knew its contents were false.

The court dismissed Bush’s claim for damages for emotional distress because he alleged psychological suffering but did not allege a physical injury. The court applied the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s requirement that a prisoner show physical injury before recovering for mental or emotional injuries suffered while incarcerated.

Bush had previously received an opportunity to amend these claims. The court found no good cause for another amendment and dismissed the identified claims for failure to state a claim. The court also stated that Mojica and the First Amendment retaliation claim were no longer part of the action because Bush did not include them in the amended complaint.

Service and next steps

The order directed service of the amended complaint on listed defendants and required defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion concerning the claims found cognizable within 91 days after the order was filed. It set deadlines for Bush’s opposition and defendants’ reply, stated that discovery could proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and advised Bush that failing to oppose a dispositive motion could result in judgment against him without a trial.

Disposition

The court dismissed the equal-protection claim against all defendants; the conspiracy claim against Vega, Antonio, and McCay; the state-law defamation claim against Antonio and McCay; and the damages claim for emotional distress. It allowed the due-process and state-law intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims against Borla, Wade, and Lizaola to proceed. Judge Edward J. Davila also ordered service and set procedures for the next stage of the case.