Herrera v. Benavides
- Beth Freeman
- 5:22-cv-07600
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 12
In Herrera v. Benavides, Judge Freeman dismissed some prison-mail claims with prejudice and allowed others to be amended.
Joshua S. Herrera and the prison officers he sued, including S. Benavides and unidentified mailroom and appeals personnel. Herrera’s claims about court mail and due process were ended with prejudice, while several mail and retaliation claims could be amended.
What happened
In Herrera v. Benavides, Joshua S. Herrera, a state prisoner representing himself, sued officers at Salinas Valley State Prison under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that prison employees mishandled his mail, retaliated against him for filing prison appeals, and improperly handled his complaints.
The court dismissed with prejudice Herrera’s claims about opening court mail outside his presence and denying his prison appeals. It dismissed with leave to amend his claims involving returned mail, access to the courts, and retaliation. The court gave him one opportunity to file an amended complaint.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered Herrera to amend within 28 days. The court warned that failing to respond as ordered would result in dismissal with prejudice of the action for failure to state a claim.
The detailed version
- Herrera v. Benavides · No. 5:22-cv-07600
- Beth Freeman
- Apr. 20, 2023
Background
Joshua S. Herrera, a state inmate proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against S. Benavides and unidentified officers at Salinas Valley State Prison. He sought a declaration and damages. His claims concerned prison mail and the handling of his prison appeals.
Herrera alleged that prison staff returned two envelopes marked as legal or confidential mail after removing attached postage withdrawals and falsely stating that he had not paid postage. He claimed that this violated his rights to free speech and access to the courts and that the defendants retaliated against him for filing prison appeals against the mailroom. He also alleged that staff opened, read, and sent mail from a court through regular mail outside his presence. Finally, he claimed that a lieutenant and an appeals coordinator violated due process and acted retaliatorily by denying or approving reports concerning his appeals.
Court’s Analysis
The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires early review of a prisoner’s claims against governmental entities or employees. The court explained that a § 1983 claim requires facts showing both a violation of a federal right and action by a person acting under state authority.
For the returned-mail claim, the court concluded that the allegations did not state a free-speech violation because they did not indicate censorship based on the mail’s content, and there was no allegation that Herrera was prevented from resending the mail after the postage issue was resolved. Any temporary or isolated delay was also insufficient. The court allowed amendment if Herrera could allege facts showing unjustified censorship.
The court also found the access-to-the-courts claim insufficient. Herrera did not allege that the mailroom was part of the prison’s legal-access program or that the mail problem caused an actual injury, such as hindering a non-frivolous legal claim. The court allowed him to amend this claim.
The retaliation claims based on the returned mail and the opening of mail were also insufficient. The court stated that Herrera had not provided facts showing that specific defendants knew about his appeals and acted because of them. The court allowed him one opportunity to amend those claims against identified defendants.
The court dismissed with prejudice the claim based on opening court mail outside Herrera’s presence. It held that mail from courts, unlike mail between a prisoner and a lawyer, is not treated as legal mail for this purpose, so prison officials may open and inspect it outside the prisoner’s presence.
The court also dismissed with prejudice Herrera’s due-process claims based on the denial or handling of his prison appeals. It held that prisoners do not have a constitutional right to a particular grievance system, response, or outcome. The court separately found Herrera’s retaliation allegations concerning those appeal decisions insufficient and allowed him one opportunity to amend that retaliation claim.
Disposition
The court ordered as follows:
- The claims concerning out-of-presence inspection of non-legal mail from courts and due process based on denial of the prison appeals were dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
- The claims concerning freedom of speech, access to the courts, and retaliation based on the returned mail or out-of-presence mail inspection were dismissed with leave to amend.
- Herrera had 28 days from the filing of the order to submit an amended complaint.
- The amended complaint would replace the original complaint, and claims or defendants omitted from it would no longer be part of the action.
- If Herrera did not comply with the order by the deadline, the action would be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim, without further notice.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.