Moore v. Flores
- Sallie Kim
- 5:23-cv-02065
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Moore v. Flores, Judge Kim found a potentially valid access-to-courts claim and ordered Correctional Officer Flores served.
Ryan T. Moore’s § 1983 lawsuit against Correctional Officer Flores proceeds past preliminary screening; Flores must be served, and the parties must follow the court’s litigation schedule.
What happened
In Moore v. Flores, Ryan T. Moore, a prisoner at San Quentin State Prison, alleged that Correctional Officer Flores listened in on a confidential video visit with Moore’s attorney and continued doing so. Moore sought money and court-ordered relief.
The court said these allegations could support a civil-rights claim because prisoners have a right to communicate privately with their lawyers as part of meaningful access to the courts. The court ordered that Flores be served with the lawsuit.
The order did not decide whether Flores actually violated Moore’s rights. It set deadlines for future motions, responses, and discovery. Judge Sallie Kim issued the order in Moore v. Flores.
The detailed version
- Moore v. Flores · No. 5:23-cv-02065
- Sallie Kim
- Oct. 27, 2023
Background
Ryan T. Moore, a prisoner at San Quentin State Prison, filed a first amended complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that, during a video legal visit with his attorney on July 21, 2022, Correctional Officer Flores eavesdropped on a time-sensitive confidential conversation. Moore further alleged that the eavesdropping continued and that he no longer felt confident having additional video visits. He sought damages and injunctive relief.
Screening and alleged claim
Because Moore is a prisoner seeking relief from a government officer, the court conducted the required preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court explained that a § 1983 claim requires an alleged violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by a person acting under state law.
The court stated that a prisoner’s constitutional right to meaningful access to the courts includes an opportunity to communicate privately with counsel. That right may be limited when prison officials show that the limitation is reasonably related to legitimate prison interests. Construing Moore’s complaint liberally, the court found that his allegations that Flores eavesdropped on the attorney video visit and discouraged further visits arguably stated a cognizable § 1983 claim for violating meaningful access to the courts.
Order
The court ordered that Correctional Officer Flores be served through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service process for prisoner civil-rights cases. The court also established deadlines for defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion, for Moore to respond, and for defendants to reply. It permitted discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and required Moore to serve his communications on the defendants or their counsel.
This was an order allowing the claim to proceed past preliminary screening; it was not a final decision on whether Flores violated Moore’s rights. The order warned that failing to prosecute the case, keep contact information current, or comply with court orders could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Judge Sallie Kim signed the order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.