Hash v. Giacomazzi

Background

Lawrence G. Hash, identified as a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against numerous prison staff members at San Quentin State Prison and other individuals. The court explained that § 1983 provides a claim when a person acting under state authority violates a right protected by federal law.

The case was opened as a separate action following an earlier related proceeding. The court had previously screened the amended complaint and found one retaliation claim—identified as original claim 3—sufficient to proceed. Hash alleged that prison staff took adverse actions against him because he filed lawsuits, appeals, and staff complaints. Specifically, he alleged that M. Giacomazzi, P. G. Hannah, C. Bass, and C. Fry searched his cell on February 4, 2016; threatened to place him in disciplinary housing and transfer him; and that M. Giacomazzi, Petrovic, and Dorsey later threatened and moved him to the AC, where death-row inmates were housed for disciplinary matters. He sought declaratory relief, damages, and removal of the challenged rules-violation reports from his file.

Screening and claims allowed to proceed

Under the statute requiring screening of prisoner complaints against governmental entities, the court had to identify claims that were frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court was also required to read filings by people without lawyers liberally. It concluded that the allegations were sufficient to state a retaliation claim against Giacomazzi, Hannah, Bass, Fry, Petrovic, and Dorsey. The court also stated that it could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hash’s state-law claims.

The action therefore proceeds solely on the retaliation claim against those six defendants. The order states that all other claims are STRICKEN from the complaint, and it directs the clerk to terminate all other defendants from the action.

Filing date, service, and next steps

The court ordered the clerk to change the filing date from February 12, 2020, to February 3, 2020, based on the court’s finding in the earlier related proceeding that Hash had shown good cause for the change.

The clerk was directed to serve the six remaining defendants through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. The order described procedures for determining which defendants waive service and for sending service materials to the United States Marshals Service for defendants who do not waive service.

Within 91 days after the order was filed, the defendants must file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion addressing the cognizable claim, or notify the court if summary judgment cannot resolve the case. If the defendants file a summary-judgment motion, they must provide the required notice explaining the consequences of failing to oppose it. Hash’s opposition is due 28 days after the motion, and the defendants’ reply is due 14 days after the opposition. The court stated that the motion would be decided without a hearing unless the court later orders one. The order also permits discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and requires Hash to prosecute the case, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with court orders.

Disposition

The court changed the filing date, allowed the retaliation claim against the six specified defendants to proceed, struck all other claims, terminated all other defendants, ordered service, and established deadlines for dispositive motions and related filings.