Moreno v. Peffley

Background

Anthony L. Moreno, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, sued Correctional Training Facility employees L. Mendez, D. Naranjo, and Joshua Peffley. Moreno alleged that the defendants intentionally falsified evidence used to validate him as an associate of the Mexican Mafia, also identified in the opinion as EME. He alleged that Peffley used a fabricated address book as a source item, refused to give him an opportunity to rebut the evidence, and that Mendez and Naranjo approved the validation after he raised those objections.

Moreno’s amended complaint asserted claims under the Fourteenth Amendment for denial of due process and equal protection. He also alleged that the defendants violated California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation regulations governing gang validation. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, expungement of the validation from his central file, and appointment of counsel.

Screening and Claims Allowed to Proceed

Because Moreno sought relief from government employees, the court conducted the required preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court explained that a civil-rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires allegations that a federal right was violated by a person acting under state authority.

For due process, Moreno alleged that the gang validation caused an unusual and significant hardship, including unequal access to rehabilitation programs and work assignments, reduced release opportunities, possible effects on sentence length, and possible extended placement in administrative segregation. The court held that these allegations were sufficient to state a due-process claim.

For equal protection, Moreno alleged intentional discrimination based on his Hispanic race. He claimed that the defendants’ validation policies used race as a substitute for suspected gang membership and that Hispanic prisoners were targeted and treated less favorably than non-Hispanic incarcerated people. The court held that these allegations were sufficient to state an equal-protection claim.

The court said Moreno’s claim based only on violations of CDCR regulations was not itself a claim under § 1983. But because that claim was related to the due-process claim and arose from the same case or controversy, the court exercised supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear a related state-law claim, and allowed the claim to proceed.

Appointment of Counsel

The court denied Moreno’s renewed request for appointed counsel because he had not shown exceptional circumstances. The denial was expressly without prejudice. The court stated that Moreno could renew the request for all or limited purposes if the circumstances later warranted appointment and he could plead exceptional circumstances. The court also preserved the possibility that it could appoint counsel later on its own initiative.

Order and Case Schedule

The court ordered service of the amended complaint on L. Mendez, D. Naranjo, and Joshua Peffley through the electronic-service program for civil-rights cases brought by prisoners in CDCR custody. It authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and set deadlines for defendants’ summary-judgment or other dispositive motions, Moreno’s opposition, and defendants’ reply. It also instructed Moreno to serve his filings on the defendants or their counsel, keep the court informed of address changes, and prosecute the case. The order warned that failing to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.

Disposition

This was a preliminary screening and service order, not a final decision on liability. The court allowed the due-process, equal-protection, and related CDCR-regulations claims to proceed; ordered service; set the case schedule; and denied the request for appointed counsel without prejudice.