Ingram v. Bolanos

Background

Sirvontre Ingram alleged that, in April 2021, jailors at the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office stopped all incoming mail for prisoners. He asserted a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against people acting under state law for violating federal rights. The court said Ingram had provided facts and evidence showing that he exhausted his administrative remedies, although a response to his grievance stated that there had been no mail stoppage.

The original complaint had been dismissed with permission to amend because Ingram had not exhausted his administrative remedies. In the amended complaint, he named more than fifteen individuals and entities but did not allege facts connecting the alleged violation to any specific person.

Screening and claims

Because Ingram sought relief as a prisoner from governmental defendants, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. Applying that standard, the court liberally construed the allegations as stating a First Amendment claim against Sheriff Carlos Bolanos, whom it considered the most plausible defendant under the alleged facts.

The court dismissed all other claims and defendants. It also dismissed Ingram’s claims for injunctive relief because he was then at Wasco State Prison and no longer in the custody of the San Mateo County Sheriff.

Ruling and next steps

The court ordered service of the operative complaint and attachments on Carlos Bolanos. It directed Bolanos to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion by September 1, 2023. If Bolanos sought dismissal based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the court directed him to present that argument through a summary-judgment motion. The order permitted discovery and set deadlines for any opposition and reply.

The order states that only the First Amendment claims against Carlos Bolanos would proceed, while all other claims and defendants were dismissed. It also states that Ingram’s motion to proceed without paying filing fees was denied; the discussion explains that a duplicative pending motion was denied because Ingram had already been authorized to proceed without paying those fees. The order was a screening and case-management ruling, not a final decision on whether Ingram’s First Amendment claim would succeed.

Judge William H. Orrick signed the order.