Herrera v. Benavides

Background

Joshua S. Herrera, a state inmate proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officers at Salinas Valley State Prison. After the court dismissed his original complaint with permission to amend, Herrera filed an amended complaint naming S. Benavides, Lt. John Doe, T. Allen, John Doe Appeals Coordinator, John Doe (Mailroom), and Jane Doe (Mailroom).

Herrera asserted four causes of action. He alleged that mailroom employees returned two outgoing envelopes marked as legal or confidential mail after removing postage withdrawals; retaliated against him for filing prison appeals; opened and read mail from the courts outside his presence; and mishandled or denied his appeals concerning the mail. He sought declaratory relief and damages.

Screening and claims

Because Herrera was a prisoner suing governmental officers, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Screening requires the court to identify claims that are legally sufficient and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.

First cause of action: returned mail

The court dismissed with prejudice both parts of the first cause of action: the First Amendment freedom-of-speech claim and the claim that the returned mail denied Herrera access to the courts. The court explained that, even accepting the allegations, the complaint did not show that the mail was returned for censorship rather than the stated postage issue. It also found that a temporary or isolated delay did not violate the First Amendment and that Herrera did not allege an actual injury to a nonfrivolous court claim, as required for an access-to-the-courts claim. The court declined to allow another amendment because Herrera had already been given an opportunity to correct these deficiencies.

Second cause of action: retaliation for filing appeals

The court found that Herrera adequately stated a First Amendment retaliation claim against the John and Jane Doe mailroom defendants and S. Benavides. Herrera alleged that the defendants returned his mail because he had filed appeals against the mailroom, that they knew about those appeals because they had been interviewed about them, and that their conduct did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. This claim was allowed to proceed.

Third cause of action: opening mail from the courts

The court dismissed with prejudice the third cause of action. It held that mail from courts, as opposed to mail from a prisoner's lawyer, is not treated as legal mail for this constitutional analysis, so prison officials may open and inspect it outside the prisoner's presence. The court also held that an alleged violation of state prison policies or regulations, by itself, does not establish a violation of a federal right under § 1983.

Fourth cause of action: handling of appeals

The court dismissed with prejudice both the due-process claim and the retaliation claim concerning the denial or handling of Herrera's prison appeals. It held that prisoners have no constitutional entitlement to a particular grievance system, response, or outcome. The court further found that Herrera's retaliation allegations were conclusory and did not adequately allege retaliatory motive or that the defendants' conduct chilled his exercise of First Amendment rights.

Defendants and further proceedings

The court dismissed Warden T. Allen from the action because the amended complaint made no specific factual allegations against him and did not state what relief Herrera sought from him. The clerk was directed to terminate all other defendants except S. Benavides and the John and Jane Doe mailroom defendants connected to the surviving retaliation claim.

The court ordered service on S. Benavides. It allowed Herrera to conduct discovery to identify the Doe defendants and required him to move to substitute their proper names within 56 days of the order. The court warned that failing to do so would result in dismissal of the claims against those defendants for failure to state a claim. The remaining defendants were directed to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion, or notify the court if they believed the case could not be resolved that way.

Disposition

This was an order partially dismissing the amended complaint and allowing one retaliation claim to proceed. The court did not enter summary judgment or finally decide whether Herrera would prevail on the surviving claim. Judge Beth Labson Freeman also set procedures for service, discovery, and further motion practice.