Sekona v. Gutierrez

Background

Etuate Sekona, an inmate representing himself, filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state actors who violate federal constitutional or statutory rights. The complaint names Salinas Valley State Prison correctional officer Gutierrez as the defendant. The court reviewed Sekona’s amended complaint under the required screening process for prisoner actions seeking relief from a government officer.

The amended complaint alleged that Sekona had been housed with cellmates who smoked marijuana and that Gutierrez assigned him another cellmate who also smoked marijuana. Sekona alleged that Gutierrez denied his request for a safety cell because of personal bias, issued a rules-violation report after Sekona refused the assigned cellmate, and destroyed or failed to send legal mail.

According to the complaint, on or about December 6, 2022, Sekona gave Gutierrez a status report for mailing to a court in an earlier related proceeding. Gutierrez allegedly signed for the mail but did not record it in the mail log. The report allegedly never reached the court, and the earlier proceeding was dismissed because the required report was not filed.

Screening Ruling

The court held that these allegations, read generously because Sekona was representing himself, stated a cognizable First Amendment claim for denial of access to the courts and denial of the right to send mail. A claim is “cognizable” at this stage when the allegations are sufficient for the case to proceed; it is not a final decision that the claim is true.

The court held that the amended complaint failed to state claims for excessive punishment under the Eighth Amendment, denial of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, and First Amendment retaliation. The court said the complaint either did not identify what conduct violated those provisions or relied on conclusory allegations. It dismissed those remaining claims with leave to amend.

Order

The court ordered that Salinas Valley State Prison correctional officer Gutierrez be served through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic service program. The order states that the complaint presents a cognizable First Amendment claim against “Gutierrez and Muniz” for denial of access to the courts and denial of the right to send mail, although the caption, discussion, and service provision identify Gutierrez as the defendant. The opinion does not explain who Muniz is or whether Muniz’s reference is intended to add another defendant.

The court ordered Sekona to file an amended complaint within 28 days addressing the deficiencies. If he did not do so, the case would proceed solely on the First Amendment claims the court found cognizable. The court also denied as moot Sekona’s requests to correct the complaint’s event dates from 2021 to 2022 because the amended complaint already listed the events as occurring in 2022.

The order set deadlines for a summary-judgment or other dispositive motion, responses, and replies, and allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It did not decide the ultimate merits of the First Amendment claim.