Cleveland v. Tucker

Background

Ivan V. Cleveland, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials at the California Training Facility. He paid the filing fee. The complaint also listed another inmate as a plaintiff, but the opinion states that the additional inmate did not sign the pleadings and that the complaint made no allegations about him.

Screening standard

Under the prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court reviewed the complaint to identify claims that could proceed and to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, insufficiently pleaded, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court applied the rule that a § 1983 claim requires an alleged violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by a person acting under state authority.

Claims

The court stated that, when Cleveland’s allegations were read liberally, his claims that Tucker, Adams, and Lujano removed him from his job, verbally harassed him, created a hostile work environment, or endangered him with other prisoners in retaliation for filing a staff complaint were cognizable First Amendment retaliation claims.

The court also found that Cleveland’s allegation that Lujano endangered him at the hands of other prisoners stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim. The court dismissed Cleveland’s claim against Gash based on Gash’s alleged failure to grant a staff complaint because there is no constitutional right to a prison grievance or administrative-appeal system. The court further held that Cleveland had not plausibly alleged violations of procedural or substantive due process or equal protection.

Ruling and next steps

The court dismissed the additional inmate’s claims without prejudice to bringing them in a separate case. It dismissed Cleveland’s claims against Gash for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. It also dismissed Cleveland’s due-process and equal-protection claims against all defendants for failure to state a cognizable basis for relief.

The court ordered service on Tucker, Lujano, and Adams at the California Training Facility through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service process. The defendants were ordered to file answers and, within the schedule set by the court, file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion unless they informed the court that the case could not be resolved by summary judgment. The order also set deadlines for Cleveland’s opposition and the defendants’ reply, and stated that discovery could proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court’s discussion identified retaliation allegations against Tucker, Adams, and Lujano as cognizable, while the conclusion described the remaining retaliation claims as being against Adams and Lujano. The order nevertheless directed service on all three defendants.