Crosby v. Siordia
4:24-cv-07714
N.D. Cal.Jun 12, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Robert Lee Crosby, an inmate at California State Prison – Solano, filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against Correctional Training Facility (CTF) officer Salvador Siordia and former warden Koenig.
- Plaintiff's initial complaint alleged that Siordia stole his tennis shoes in retaliation for threatening to file grievances, which the court previously recognized as stating a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim.
- Plaintiff's amended complaint shifted focus to due process violations and a California Bane Act claim related to a cell search finding contraband (alcohol and tablet) and alleged harassment/racism by Siordia; it also asserted negligence against Koenig.
- The amended complaint did not replead the previously recognized retaliation claim nor state material facts supporting new legal allegations.
- The court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state any cognizable claim—due process and Bane Act claims were found legally insufficient, and the retaliation claim was found waived by omission.
- Plaintiff was granted leave to amend and given the option to refile a second amended complaint or revert to the initial operative complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument (Implied) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due Process (cell search/procedure) | Siordia violated due process by not following prison procedure (non-supervisor, improper logging of contraband) | Failure to follow internal prison rules is not a constitutional due process issue | No due process violation; dismissed with prejudice |
| Bane Act claim (harassment/racism) | Siordia violated the Bane Act by harassing and demonstrating racism towards Crosby in retaliation for threatened grievances | Vague allegations lack evidence of violence, threat, or specific harm | No Bane Act violation stated |
| § 1983 claim against Koenig | Koenig, as warden, was negligently responsible for Siordia's actions | Supervisory negligence is not a basis for § 1983 liability in the prison context | No § 1983 liability; negligence not actionable |
| First Amendment Retaliation | (Not re-alleged in amended complaint; initial complaint alleged retaliation for grievance threats) | (Previously found cognizable; not at issue in amended complaint by omission) | Retaliation claim currently waived by omission |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (establishes minimum procedural protections required by due process for prison disciplinary proceedings)
- Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985) (requires "some evidence" to support prison disciplinary findings for due process)
- Cato v. Rushen, 824 F.2d 703 (9th Cir. 1987) (information used in discipline must have some reliability)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (requires state action and violation of federal rights for a § 1983 claim)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (negligence is not actionable under § 1983 in prison context)
- Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040 (9th Cir. 1989) (no respondeat superior liability under § 1983)
- Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of First Amendment retaliation claim in the prison context)
- Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2010) (amended complaint replaces all prior complaints)