Thomas v. Smith
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:23-cv-05617
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Thomas v. Smith, Judge Corley dismissed the municipal-liability claim without leave to amend, allowed retaliation claims to proceed, and ordered service.
Hilbert Thomas may continue pursuing his retaliation claims against Oak Smith, S. Sanchez, and J. Munger, while his municipal-liability claim cannot be amended. The defendants must be served and respond under the schedule in the order.
What happened
In Thomas v. Smith, Hilbert Thomas, a California prisoner without a lawyer, sued Warden Oak Smith and Correctional Officers S. Sanchez and J. Munger under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that searches and discipline were retaliation for filing a lawsuit and prison grievances.
The court found those retaliation claims capable of being heard, but dismissed the municipal-liability claim because none of the defendants was a municipality. The court also ordered that the defendants be served and granted Thomas’s motion to file the complaint.
Judge Jacquelyn Corley denied Thomas’s request concerning a name change because he said he would continue using “Hilbert Thomas” in the case. The order did not decide whether the retaliation claims were ultimately valid.
The detailed version
- Thomas v. Smith · No. 3:23-cv-05617
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Jan. 18, 2024
Background
Hilbert Thomas, identified as a California prisoner proceeding without an attorney, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He named Warden Oak Smith, Correctional Officer S. Sanchez, and Correctional Officer J. Munger as defendants. Thomas alleged that Sanchez and Munger conducted strip and cell searches and disciplined him for contraband found during those events, at Smith’s direction, in retaliation for filing a lawsuit and administrative grievances. He claimed that this conduct violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Screening and claims
Because Thomas is a prisoner suing government officials, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court concluded that the retaliation claim, liberally construed, was capable of judicial determination and ordered the complaint served on the three defendants.
Thomas also asserted a separate “municipal liability” claim. The court dismissed that claim because none of the defendants was a municipality. The court specified that the claim was dismissed without leave to amend.
Other motions and case management
The court granted Thomas’s motion for leave to file the complaint. It denied his “motion” seeking notice of a name change because he stated that he would continue using “Hilbert Thomas” in the case and because the cited rule concerns docketing and record keeping rather than requiring such a motion. The court said that a future name or address change could be made by filing a notice.
The court directed service on Smith, Sanchez, and Munger at San Quentin State Prison through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program. It also set deadlines for defendants to file a summary-judgment or other dispositive motion, for Thomas to respond, and for defendants to reply. The order allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Disposition
The municipal-liability claim was dismissed without leave to amend. The motion to file the complaint was granted, the name-change motion was denied, and the retaliation claims against Smith, Sanchez, and Munger were allowed to proceed to service. The court did not decide the merits of those retaliation claims.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.