Nieto v. Allison

Background

Michael Nieto, an inmate at California State Prison—Solano, filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning events at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California. He proceeded without a lawyer and had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee in a separate order. The court reviewed his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires preliminary screening of a prisoner’s claims against government entities or officials.

The complaint named the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Secretary Kathleen Allison, Warden Trent Allen, and numerous other prison officials. It asserted three causes of action. The first concerned an alleged sexual assault during a body search, an allegedly false gang-related rules violation report, and related due-process and equal-protection theories. The second alleged retaliation after Nieto reported the alleged assault. The third concerned a separate set of events in March 2022 involving another rules violation report, alleged excessive force, threats, and related conduct.

Screening of the First Cause of Action

The court held that the allegations that J. Peefley sexually harassed or assaulted Nieto stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim. The court dismissed the remainder of the first cause of action with leave to amend.

The court concluded that Nieto had not adequately alleged an Eighth Amendment claim against officials who allegedly witnessed the incident, failed to report it, or were identified as supervisors, because the complaint did not connect their individual actions or omissions to the alleged assault. The court also found no cognizable due-process claim because the alleged events were not pleaded as causing a sufficiently severe or unusual change in Nieto’s prison conditions. It found no equal-protection claim because the complaint did not allege that Nieto was treated differently from similarly situated people or provide facts sufficient to show discriminatory intent.

Screening of the Second Cause of Action

The court held that the allegation against Perez was sufficient to state a First Amendment retaliation claim. According to the complaint, on May 27, 2021, Perez opened Nieto’s cell door, asked for him by name, and told him to remember that a hallway incident was an accident, implying that Nieto should drop his sexual-assault claim.

The court dismissed the remainder of the second cause of action with leave to amend. It found that several allegations did not identify the officials responsible for the conduct or did not allege facts showing that the officials knew about Nieto’s protected activity or acted because of it. It found some allegations speculative or too vague. The court stated that the allegation that Levine and Aceves cut off Nieto’s power in retaliation for a grievance might support a retaliation claim, but the complaint did not provide enough timing and factual detail. The court also stated that Nieto had not explained how the alleged retaliation violated the Eighth Amendment, and that a due-process theory could not be used when the First Amendment specifically addressed the alleged retaliation.

Third Cause of Action and Joinder

The court dismissed the third cause of action without prejudice because it violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2), the rule governing when multiple defendants and claims may be joined in one lawsuit. The court determined that the claims concerning the March 11, 2022 incident and later events arose from a separate occurrence from the alleged April 2021 sexual assault and subsequent retaliation.

The court dismissed Nagma, Jiminez, Magallon, Taylor, Singh, John Does 10 and 11, Hendley, and Allen from this action without prejudice to Nieto filing a separate action against them.

Order

The court ordered that J. Peefley and Perez be served. It allowed Nieto 28 days from the date of the order to file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies. Any amended complaint had to include all claims and defendants Nieto wished to pursue and could not incorporate the prior complaint by reference. If Nieto did not timely amend, the original complaint would remain operative and the case would proceed solely on the claims found cognizable against the defendants ordered served. The court also set procedures for later dispositive motions and discovery.

Judge Jon S. Tigar therefore entered an order of partial service, dismissed certain claims with leave to amend, and dismissed the third cause of action and specified defendants without prejudice.