Lopez v. Lee
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:23-cv-03660
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 12
In Lopez v. Lee, Judge Gilliam screened Lopez’s prisoner complaint, dismissed claims and defendants without prejudice, and allowed six officers to be served.
Andrew Lopez’s lawsuit was narrowed. Six Pelican Bay officers—S. Cupp, Hammer, Cross, M. Lee, Brewer, and K. Davis—remain subject to service on First Amendment retaliation and Bane Act claims, while other claims and defendants were dismissed without prejudice, with different options to amend or file a separate action.
What happened
In Lopez v. Lee, Andrew Lopez, a San Quentin State Prison inmate representing himself, sued under a federal civil-rights law. The court screened his complaint, which described events at San Quentin and Pelican Bay State Prison from April 2020 through April 2023.
The court found that the complaint was too long and improperly combined unrelated claims and defendants. It allowed First Amendment retaliation and California Bane Act claims to proceed against S. Cupp, Hammer, Cross, M. Lee, Brewer, and K. Davis based on allegations that they restricted phone calls, yard time, or showers because Lopez filed grievances. It dismissed other claims and defendants, generally allowing Lopez to amend or bring some claims in a separate action.
Judge Haywood Gilliam ordered service on the six officers and gave Lopez 28 days to file an amended complaint addressing the identified problems. This screening order did not decide whether Lopez will ultimately prove the claims.
The detailed version
- Lopez v. Lee · No. 4:23-cv-03660
- Haywood Gilliam
- June 14, 2024
Background
Andrew Lopez, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed a lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He paid the filing fee. The court screened the complaint under the prisoner-screening statute, which requires a court to identify claims that may proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.
The complaint described more than 20 pages of alleged negative interactions with correctional officials at Pelican Bay State Prison and San Quentin State Prison between April 2020 and April 2023. The court found that the complaint did not provide the short and plain statement required by the federal rules. It also found that the complaint improperly joined unrelated defendants and claims in one action. In particular, the Pelican Bay retaliation claims were not sufficiently connected to the San Quentin retaliation and medical-care claims.
Claims and Defendants
The court dismissed the claims involving San Quentin officers Ronnenberg, Real, Micheal, Malikian, Morales, Alvarado, Dotts, Smith, Willingham, and Broomfield, and dismissed those defendants from this action. That dismissal was without prejudice to Lopez bringing claims against the San Quentin officers in a separate civil-rights action.
The court also dismissed PBSP chief deputy warden Bell, PBSP warden Robertson, former SQSP deputy warden Oak Smith, former CDCR Secretary Allison, current CDCR Secretary Maccomber, and Chief of Inmate Appeals Moseley. The court explained that allegations based mainly on receiving or reviewing grievances, or on supervisory positions, did not show that these defendants personally caused a constitutional violation. That dismissal was without prejudice to filing an amended complaint if Lopez could truthfully correct the identified problems.
The court dismissed the First Amendment retaliation claims against Pelican Bay correctional officials Bell, Betzinger, Robertson, Kirby, Pope, and Cain. It found that the allegations mainly showed that some defendants received complaints or grievances, while the allegations against Pope and Cain did not reasonably suggest adverse action or retaliatory intent. This dismissal was without prejudice to filing an amended complaint that truthfully addressed the deficiencies.
The court also dismissed Doe Defendants 26 through 50 without prejudice. It stated that Lopez could conduct discovery to identify the unknown defendants and then seek permission to amend the complaint.
Claims Allowed to Proceed
The court found cognizable—that is, legally sufficient at the screening stage—First Amendment retaliation claims against Pelican Bay officers S. Cupp, Hammer, Cross, M. Lee, Brewer, and K. Davis. The complaint alleged that these officers restricted or threatened to restrict phone calls, yard or out-of-cell time, and showers because Lopez filed grievances. The court identified specific allegations involving statements or actions on dates in 2020 and 2021.
The court also found cognizable California Bane Act claims against Cupp, Hammer, Cross, Lee, Brewer, and Davis. The court stated that the allegations that these officers threatened to deprive Lopez of phone calls, out-of-cell time, or showers because of his grievance activity were sufficient at this stage. It cautioned that merely violating prison rules, verbally harassing an inmate, or mishandling a grievance does not by itself establish a federal civil-rights claim.
Order
The court ordered that Cupp, Hammer, Cross, M. Lee, Brewer, and K. Davis be served through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic service program. It ordered defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion within 91 days after the order was filed, unless they informed the court that summary judgment could not resolve the case. The court set response and reply deadlines and stated that no hearing would be held on the motion.
Lopez was given 28 days from the date of the order to file an amended complaint. If he did not timely file one, the original complaint would remain operative and the case would proceed only against the defendants ordered served and on the claims the court found cognizable. The order was a screening and case-management ruling; it did not finally decide the ultimate merits of the surviving claims.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.