Malone v. Zarate

Background

Deshawn P. Malone, who was incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed a civil-rights complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He sued Correctional Officers A. Zarate, Camacho, J. Larraux, and D. Vaca in both their individual and official capacities. He sought declaratory relief, money damages, and punitive damages. The court reviewed the complaint under the federal prisoner-screening statute, which requires screening claims against governmental officers and dismissal of claims that are legally insufficient or seek relief from an immune defendant.

Claims and Analysis

Malone alleged that on February 4, 2023, Zarate and Camacho conducted a random cell search and ordered him to undergo a strip search even though he said his cell had recently been searched. He alleged that the search occurred with the cell door open and in view of people in the dayroom, female staff, and recording body cameras. The court concluded that, liberally read, these allegations stated a cognizable claim under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

Malone also alleged that Larraux and Vaca conducted a retaliatory cell search on February 20, 2023, because he had filed a prison grievance reporting the earlier conduct. The court held that this retaliation claim was not adequately pleaded because Malone offered only speculative and conclusory allegations about the officers’ motive. He did not allege facts showing that Larraux and Vaca knew about his grievance or establishing a connection between the grievance and the later search.

The court also dismissed Malone’s official-capacity claim for money damages. An official-capacity claim is treated as a claim against the government entity, and the court stated that the Eleventh Amendment barred such damages here because there had been no waiver.

Disposition

The court stated that Malone’s Eighth Amendment claim against Zarate and Camacho arising from the February 4 incident was cognizable. It dismissed with leave to amend Malone’s remaining official-capacity and retaliation claims. The order gave him 28 days to file an amended complaint correcting the identified deficiencies. If he amended, the new complaint had to include all claims he wished to pursue, including the already-cognizable Eighth Amendment claim. The court ordered that Zarate and Camacho be served and set procedures for answering, discovery, and later dispositive motions. The court also stated that failure to file a compliant amended complaint would result in dismissal of the remaining claims, while the initial complaint would remain operative and the case would proceed under the order.