Herrera v. Ortega

Background

Joshua S. Herrera, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Lt. J. Ortega, Officer R. Castillo-Ruiz, Officer B. Duran, and Officer R. Cardona. The court had found that Herrera’s second amended complaint stated a legally sufficient claim for retaliation.

Herrera alleged that he learned of a confidential memorandum identifying him as selling controlled substances at Salinas Valley State Prison. He filed a prison grievance challenging the memorandum and asking that it be removed from his file. Herrera alleged that the defendants tried to intimidate him into withdrawing the grievance. He said Ortega filled out part of a withdrawal form, repeatedly asked whether he would withdraw the grievance, and then said, “Then we’re going to hit your house,” before the defendants searched his cell. Herrera also alleged that Castillo-Ruiz threatened to copy his notebook and show it to the Board while hoping that the Board would deny Herrera’s request.

The defendants denied asking Herrera to withdraw his grievance. They said Herrera suggested that they search his cell to show that he had no narcotics. The search found no contraband or narcotics, although a notebook was temporarily confiscated to determine whether it contained security-threat-group information. Herrera denied inviting or suggesting the search. Declarations from other inmates supported his account that the defendants appeared to be intimidating him. Herrera also stated that, because he feared further retaliation, he did not pursue an appeal concerning another confidential memorandum.

Summary-judgment ruling

Summary judgment is granted when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must not decide witness credibility or weigh conflicting evidence at this stage; it must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.

The court held that genuine disputes of material fact prevented summary judgment on Herrera’s retaliation claim. A prison-retaliation claim requires evidence that a state actor took adverse action because the prisoner engaged in protected conduct, that the action chilled the prisoner’s exercise of constitutional rights, and that the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.

The defendants argued that Herrera’s rights were not chilled because he continued pursuing his grievance through the final appeal level. The court rejected that argument because a prisoner need not show that retaliation completely stopped the exercise of his rights. Herrera’s statement that he was intimidated from pursuing another grievance was enough at this stage.

The court also found a material factual dispute over whether Herrera invited the cell search. Herrera’s declaration contradicted the defendants’ declarations, and the court could not resolve that credibility conflict on summary judgment. Viewing the evidence in Herrera’s favor, the court also concluded that the defendants had not shown that the search, conducted six months after the memorandum was written and after Herrera challenged it, necessarily served a legitimate correctional goal. The court stated that the asserted goal appeared potentially pretextual on the record before it.

Qualified immunity

Qualified immunity is a defense that can protect government officials from civil damages when their conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right that a reasonable official would have understood. The defendants argued that no controlling precedent clearly established that this particular cell search would constitute retaliation.

The court rejected that argument. It stated that a prior case need not involve identical facts and held that the right to exercise First Amendment rights without retaliation, including by filing prison grievances, was clearly established. Viewing the evidence in Herrera’s favor, the court concluded that the defendants had not shown that a reasonable officer could have believed it lawful to intimidate Herrera into withdrawing his grievance and then search his cell when he refused. The court therefore denied the defendants’ motion based on qualified immunity.

Disposition and next steps

The court ordered that the motion for summary judgment filed by Ortega, Castillo-Ruiz, Duran, and Cardona was DENIED. It referred the action to Judge Robert M. Illman for mediation through the Pro Se Prisoner Settlement Program, with proceedings to occur within 90 days of the order’s filing date. Apart from the settlement proceedings and matters Judge Illman considered necessary for them, the court STAYED the action until further order.