Tamayo v. Garcia

Background

Sergio Tamayo, a pro se state prisoner, sued several correctional officers at Pelican Bay State Prison under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state actors for violating constitutional rights. He alleged that officers harassed him before March 21, 2022, and that officers then used excessive force against him, including throwing him to the ground, punching him, choking him, and kneeling on his neck and ribs. He also alleged retaliation for protected conduct and due-process violations during the investigation and disciplinary proceedings that followed.

The disciplinary proceeding resulted in a guilty finding for staff assault. Tamayo alleged that officers fabricated reports, withheld video evidence, and failed to consider exculpatory evidence. As a result, he lost 150 days of good-time credit and 90 days of phone and package privileges. He sought declaratory relief, an injunction, and compensatory, punitive, and nominal damages.

Screening analysis

Because Tamayo was a prisoner seeking relief against government officers, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court identified possible claims for retaliation, excessive force, and denial of due process, but it concluded that some or all of them appeared barred by the rule from Heck v. Humphrey.

That rule generally prevents a prisoner from pursuing damages under § 1983 when success would necessarily show that an underlying conviction or disciplinary decision is invalid, unless that decision has already been reversed, expunged, or otherwise invalidated. The rule can apply to prison disciplinary actions when the challenged decision resulted in the loss of good-time credits affecting the duration of confinement.

The court reasoned that Tamayo’s claims appeared to depend on proving that the staff-assault finding was based on fabricated reports or defective procedures and that the force used against him was unprovoked. If successful, those claims could necessarily demonstrate that the disciplinary finding and resulting loss of good-time credits were invalid. The court also noted, however, that it was not entirely clear whether Tamayo could state claims that would challenge the circumstances of his confinement without implying that the disciplinary finding was invalid.

Disposition

The court granted Tamayo leave to amend his complaint. The amended complaint was due no later than October 23, 2023, and had to use the case caption and number specified in the order and be labeled “AMENDED COMPLAINT.” The court explained that an amended complaint would replace the original complaint, and that claims or defendants omitted from it would no longer be part of the case.

The order did not dismiss the complaint at that stage. It stated that if Tamayo failed to amend on time, or if the amended complaint did not cure the identified defects, the court might later reassign the case to a district judge with a recommendation that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice to Tamayo’s ability to file a prison-release petition. Judge Virginia K. Demarchi also directed the clerk to send Tamayo two copies of the court’s complaint form.