Moreno v. Perez-Pantoja

Background

Paul Anthony Moreno, a prisoner at Correctional Training Facility, sued correctional officer I. Perez-Pantoja under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state officials for violating constitutional rights. Moreno brought two claims. First, he alleged that Perez-Pantoja retaliated against him for filing a grievance against correctional officer Bravo by searching Moreno’s cell and destroying his eyeglasses and compact discs. Second, he alleged that Perez-Pantoja was deliberately indifferent to his health and safety under the Eighth Amendment by failing to follow COVID-19 precautions during the search.

On May 6, 2021, Perez-Pantoja entered and searched Moreno’s cell without changing his latex gloves or face mask. Moreno alleged that Perez-Pantoja’s mask was down and that the officer destroyed his eyeglasses and a compact disc during the search. Perez-Pantoja denied damaging Moreno’s property and maintained that the search was random and part of his required duties. Perez-Pantoja also said that he did not know about Moreno’s grievance against Bravo. Moreno disputed that account, citing Perez-Pantoja’s statement the day after the search: “You want to 602 my homeboy Bravo right? Keep that shit up and you’re gonna end up in the hole. Good luck writing up shit without your glasses.”

Summary-judgment ruling

Summary judgment is a ruling issued without a trial when the evidence shows that no important fact is genuinely disputed and the moving party is legally entitled to win. The court must not decide which witnesses are believable at this stage and must view disputed evidence in the nonmoving party’s favor.

The court denied Perez-Pantoja’s motion for summary judgment on the First Amendment retaliation claim. It found triable issues—disputes that a jury could resolve—about whether Perez-Pantoja knew about Moreno’s grievance before the search and whether the search or destruction of Moreno’s property was motivated by that grievance or served a legitimate prison-security purpose.

The court identified evidence that could support Moreno’s account, including Perez-Pantoja’s reference to the grievance against Bravo, the fact that Perez-Pantoja was the only person who entered Moreno’s cell during the search, the discovery of Moreno’s damaged property afterward, and a cell-search log that credited another officer with the search. The court also concluded that destroying an inmate’s property and threatening administrative segregation could deter an ordinarily firm prisoner from exercising the right to file grievances. Moreno’s later filing of additional grievances did not eliminate the possible deterrent effect.

The court granted summary judgment to Perez-Pantoja on the Eighth Amendment claim. Although an inmate does not have to show that harm actually occurred to bring a deliberate-indifference claim involving a future health risk, the court found no triable issue about whether Perez-Pantoja’s conduct unreasonably exposed Moreno to COVID-19. The applicable policies did not require changing gloves and masks between every cell search, and the record did not show that failing to do so increased the risk of COVID-19. The court also noted that social distancing was not always possible, Moreno was not in the cell during the search, there was no allegation that the other officers lacked proper protective equipment or had recently been exposed to COVID-19, and the facility was not experiencing an outbreak at the time.

Qualified immunity

Qualified immunity is a legal protection that can shield a government official from liability when the official’s conduct did not violate a constitutional right or the right was not clearly established. The court concluded that no further qualified-immunity analysis was needed for the Eighth Amendment claim because Perez-Pantoja’s conduct did not violate that right on the record presented.

The court rejected qualified immunity for Perez-Pantoja on the First Amendment retaliation claim. It held that Ninth Circuit law clearly established that destroying an inmate’s property in retaliation for protected conduct is an adverse action and that prison officials may not use a valid procedure as a cover to silence or punish an inmate. Because factual disputes remained about whether the search or property destruction was retaliatory, Perez-Pantoja was not entitled to qualified immunity on that claim.

Other rulings and case status

The court denied Moreno’s request for permission to file a surreply. It granted in part and denied in part Perez-Pantoja’s motion for summary judgment: summary judgment was granted on the Eighth Amendment claim and denied on the First Amendment retaliation claim. The remaining claim concerns whether Perez-Pantoja retaliated against Moreno by searching his cell and destroying his property on May 6, 2021.

The court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Robert Illman for settlement proceedings through the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program. It stayed further proceedings and directed the Clerk to administratively close the case until further order. The order states that, if the case is not settled, the court will issue a new scheduling order.