Nguyen v. Ascencio

Background

Tam Steve Nguyen, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Correctional Officer Todan Ascencio. The court had dismissed Nguyen’s original complaint while allowing him to amend it. Nguyen then filed an amended complaint.

Nguyen alleged that on May 5, 2022, Ascencio searched his cell because of Nguyen’s Asian heritage and said, “You people are trouble. You brought us COVID.” Nguyen also alleged that he told Ascencio he intended to file a grievance; that Ascencio planted contraband in the cell; falsified a rules-violation report; forced Nguyen off a telephone call; called him a snitch in front of other inmates; filed a second rules-violation report; and made false statements and submitted false evidence at a hearing.

Legal standards

The court explained that federal law requires preliminary screening of a prisoner’s complaint against a governmental officer. The court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. Because Nguyen was representing himself, the court was required to read his allegations liberally, while still requiring enough factual allegations to make relief plausible.

For a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege both that a federal constitutional or statutory right was violated and that the violation was committed by someone acting under state authority. For a prison-retaliation claim under the First Amendment, the plaintiff must allege that a state actor took adverse action because of 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. For an equal-protection claim based on racial discrimination, the plaintiff must allege that the defendant acted with discriminatory intent or purpose based on membership in a protected class.

Court’s analysis and ruling

The court concluded that Nguyen’s allegations of retaliation and discrimination were sufficient to proceed. The order did not determine the ultimate truth of the allegations or enter judgment on the claims.

The court ordered that Todan Ascencio be served electronically at San Quentin State Prison through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. It directed the clerk and state officials to take steps concerning service waivers and, if necessary, service by the United States Marshals Service.

The court also ordered that, within 60 days after service, Ascencio must file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion, or inform the court that the case cannot be resolved through such a motion. Nguyen’s opposition, if any, would be due within 30 days after the motion was served, and any reply would be due within 15 days after the opposition. The order permits discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and requires Nguyen to keep the court informed of address changes and comply with court orders.