Bess v. Barroso

Background

Daniel E. Bess, a California prisoner proceeding without an attorney, sued Lieutenant J. Barroso, Lieutenant J. Martinez, and R. Oviedo, officials at the Correctional Training Facility. Bess alleged that the defendants retaliated against him for pursuing a currently pending lawsuit. He alleged that Barroso placed a false memorandum in his records identifying him as a member of the Security Threat Group, Martinez poured a dark liquid over his legal papers, and Oviedo approved the memorandum and failed to report the alleged wrongdoing.

Bess asserted claims for First Amendment retaliation, violation of the Eighth Amendment, conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, violation of California’s Bane Act, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He requested damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, and appointment of counsel.

Screening and Claims

Because Bess was a prisoner suing governmental officials, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court had to identify claims that could be heard and decided and dismiss claims that were legally insufficient under the screening statute. The court also construed Bess’s allegations liberally because he was unrepresented.

First Amendment retaliation. The court held that Bess’s allegations were sufficient to state a claim that the defendants retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment rights. The claim was based on alleged adverse actions taken because Bess pursued another lawsuit.

Eighth Amendment. The court held that Bess had not adequately stated an Eighth Amendment claim. Although he alleged that the defendants caused emotional distress, he did not allege that he had a serious medical or mental-health need. The court dismissed this claim with leave to amend so Bess could allege supporting facts, if he could do so in good faith.

Civil-rights conspiracy. The court held that Bess had not stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. He did not allege facts concerning two types of conspiracy identified by the statute, and he did not allege that the defendants acted with racial or other class-based discriminatory animus. The court dismissed this claim with leave to amend.

California Bane Act. The court held that Bess’s allegations were sufficient to state a claim under California Civil Code § 52.1. Construing the allegations liberally, the court found that the alleged false memorandum and destruction of legal papers plausibly involved intimidation, coercion, or violence against property, interfered with Bess’s exercise of constitutional rights, and caused harm.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court held that Bess’s allegations were sufficient to state this California-law claim, except to the extent he sought money damages based on the claim. The court did not find that the claim itself had to be dismissed.

Damages for emotional or mental injuries. The court dismissed all claims seeking money damages for mental or emotional injuries because Bess did not allege a physical injury, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court granted leave to amend so he could allege a physical injury caused by the defendants’ actions, if he could do so in good faith.

Appointment of Counsel and Disposition

Judge Jacquelyn Corley denied Bess’s request for appointed counsel. The court explained that there is no general right to counsel in a civil case and found no exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel at that point.

The court dismissed Bess’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, his Eighth Amendment claim, and all claims seeking damages for emotional or mental injuries, with leave to amend. The court found that Bess’s other claims were capable of judicial determination. Bess was permitted to file an amended complaint by May 2, 2024. If he failed to file an amended complaint or filed one that did not cure the deficiencies, the dismissed claims would not remain in the case, and service would be ordered based only on the claims the court found capable of judicial determination.