DePonte v. Bierman

Background

David Arthur DePonte, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He named Prison Industry Authority supervisor Mirna Bierman and correctional officers Espinoza, Rivera, and Sanchez as defendants. DePonte alleged that after he reported a workplace-harassment issue involving Randy Williams on November 19, 2021, Bierman referred him to mental-health services and removed him from his Prison Industry Authority job in retaliation. He also alleged that he was told not to speak to his supervisor, that custody staff created safety issues that followed him between institutions, that Espinoza disclosed confidential information to inmates, and that Rivera made an erroneous mental-health referral and violated confidentiality laws.

DePonte alleged that he was placed in a mental hospital for six months, suffered mental anguish, and lost his job. He sought to have his mental-health records cleared, requested $20 million and back pay, asked that certain records be removed from his file, and requested other relief involving the defendants and future mental-health referrals.

Screening of the Complaint

The court reviewed the complaint under the prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That statute requires the court to identify claims that are legally sufficient and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.

The court explained that a First Amendment retaliation claim in prison requires allegations that a state actor took adverse action because of the prisoner’s protected conduct, that the action chilled the prisoner’s exercise of First Amendment rights, and that the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. The court concluded that DePonte had not supplied enough detail about the protected activity for which the defendants allegedly retaliated. He did not explain the type of harassment he reported, whether the alleged harasser was another prisoner or a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation employee, or why the defendants would retaliate if the report concerned another prisoner.

The court also noted that records attached to the complaint showed that DePonte had been referred to mental-health services in 2020, before his November 2021 conversation with Bierman. If DePonte claimed that Espinoza’s and Sanchez’s 2020 referrals were retaliatory, the court said he needed to identify the protected conduct that supposedly caused those referrals. The court further found that DePonte did not explain what he meant by saying he had filed confidential information against Rivera and made no specific allegations against Sanchez. Although DePonte referred to several constitutional amendments and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the court stated that he had not alleged constitutional violations other than the First Amendment retaliation claim.

The court also instructed DePonte that unrelated claims against different defendants could not be combined in one complaint unless they arose from the same transaction, occurrence, or related series of events and involved a common legal or factual question. An amended complaint had to describe the conduct of each defendant that allegedly created liability and could not simply attach documents while relying on the court to find the necessary allegations.

Emergency-Relief Motion

DePonte separately asked the court to order his release from administrative segregation, require mental-health staff to return documents, and stop alleged tampering with his case file. The court construed that filing as seeking a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order and DENIED without prejudice the motion.

The court explained that a preliminary injunction generally requires notice to the opposing party. DePonte’s complaint had not been served, and the defendants had not received notice. The court also found that DePonte had not described efforts to serve the motion or shown through an affidavit or verified complaint that immediate and irreparable harm would occur before the defendants could respond. The court therefore concluded that he had not met the procedural requirements for a temporary restraining order or demonstrated the required substantive grounds for emergency relief. It stated that, if the court later ordered service of an amended complaint, DePonte could renew his request for a preliminary injunction.

Disposition

The court DISMISSED the complaint with leave to amend. It ordered DePonte to file an amended complaint within 28 days, using the case caption and number and marking the first page “AMENDED COMPLAINT.” The court stated that an amended complaint would replace the original complaint, so DePonte had to include all claims he wished to present and could not incorporate the original complaint by reference. The order also stated that failure to amend within the designated time would result in dismissal of the case. The order terminated docket numbers 23 and 24.