Michel v. Barroso

Background

Ramon Michel, a California prisoner proceeding without an attorney, sued prison officials, including Lieutenant J. Barroso and Sergeant J. Gomez. He alleged that the officials retaliated against him for filing prison administrative grievances. According to the complaint, officials ordered subordinates to search and “trash” his cell ten times, damaging his property, and Gomez ordered a subordinate to issue him a “false” rules-violation report. Michel was later found not guilty of violating prison rules.

Michel asserted claims for retaliation and intentional infliction of emotional distress under California law. He sought money damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, and appointment of counsel.

Court’s Analysis

The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires an early review of a prisoner’s claims against governmental entities or officials. The court said that, when read liberally, Michel’s allegations were sufficient to state a First Amendment retaliation claim based on his use of prison grievance procedures. The court also found that his allegations were sufficient, at this stage, to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under California law.

The court separately addressed Michel’s request for money damages for mental and emotional injuries. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a prisoner must show a physical injury before recovering damages for mental or emotional injuries suffered while incarcerated. The court found that Michel had not alleged a physical injury. It therefore dismissed his demands for monetary damages for mental and emotional injuries and allowed him to amend to allege a physical injury if he could do so in good faith.

The court also denied appointment of counsel. It explained that there is no general right to appointed counsel in a civil case and found that Michel was able to present his allegations and that exceptional circumstances were not present at that point.

Disposition

The court ruled that Michel’s retaliation and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims were capable of judicial determination, but that he could not recover monetary damages for mental or emotional distress as currently alleged. The court denied his request for appointment of counsel and granted him leave to file an amended complaint by July 2, 2024.

The court stated that an amended complaint would replace the original complaint and must include all claims Michel wished to pursue. If he failed to file an amended complaint, or if the amendment was insufficient, the claims for monetary relief for mental and emotional distress would not be part of the case. Service would then be ordered on the retaliation and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims only to the extent they sought relief other than those damages.