2:20-cv-00773
E.D. Cal.Aug 31, 2020Background:
- Plaintiff Charles Windham, a state prisoner at Mule Creek State Prison, alleges events from Feb–Mar 2020.
- Named defendants: Correctional Officers Marroquina, Brewer, Moua, and a litigation coordinator referred to as Jane Roe 1.
- Allegations: defendants searched plaintiff’s cell ~12 times, destroyed/confiscated personal property (including a CD-ROM with legal papers), and limited toilet paper supply; conduct allegedly in retaliation for grievances.
- Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (SAC); the court screened it under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found no cognizable § 1983 claims but granted leave to amend.
- Court explained that cell searches implicate no Fourth Amendment privacy right; loss of property is generally a state-law remedy unless procedural prerequisites (Government Claims Act) are met; access-to-courts requires showing actual injury; and Eighth Amendment/sanitation and retaliation claims were insufficiently pleaded.
- The SAC was dismissed with leave to file a Third Amended Complaint within 60 days and with directions on pleading requirements and personal participation for § 1983 liability.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fourth Amendment — unreasonable search/seizure | Windham says repeated cell searches and confiscations were unreasonable | Prisoners have no reasonable expectation of privacy in cells; cell searches lawful in incarceration context | Dismissed: no Fourth Amendment protection for cell searches or destruction of inmate property (Hudson) |
| Loss/destruction of property — due process/state law remedy | Windham claims property (CD-ROM) taken/destroyed | Unauthorized takings are remedied under state law, not § 1983 absent compliance with Government Claims Act | Dismissed as § 1983 claim; state remedy available and plaintiff failed to show GCA compliance |
| Access to courts / First Amendment | CD-ROM contained legal documents; its loss hindered legal claims | Plaintiff must show actual injury — that defendants’ acts hindered pursuit of a nonfrivolous claim | Not pleaded: court noted possible First Amendment claim but requires factual showing of actual injury (Lewis) |
| Eighth Amendment — inhumane conditions (toilet paper) | Windham alleges denial of more than standard one roll/week for a month | To state Eighth Amendment claim, deprivation must pose substantial risk of serious harm and show deliberate indifference | Dismissed: alleged lack of toilet paper not shown to be sufficiently severe/prolonged to meet Eighth Amendment standard |
| Retaliation — for filing grievances | Windham alleges searches/destruction were retaliatory after grievances and after grievance about CD-ROM | Must allege protected activity, defendant’s knowledge, and that activity was a motivating/substantial factor; need direct or circumstantial evidence | Dismissed for inadequate factual connection; court allowed possibility of repleading with facts showing motive and temporal/other circumstantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (U.S. 1984) (prisoners have no reasonable expectation of privacy in cells; seizure/destruction of inmate property not protected by Fourth Amendment)
- Nakao v. Rushen, 766 F.2d 410 (9th Cir. 1985) (reiterating lack of privacy expectation for prison cells)
- Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 1994) (unauthorized taking of property is a state-law claim, not a § 1983 claim absent statutory prerequisites)
- Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (U.S. 1996) (access-to-courts claim requires showing of actual injury hindering pursuit of nonfrivolous claim)
- Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (U.S. 1977) (establishes principles governing prisoners’ right of access to the courts)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard for conditions of confinement)
- Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740 (9th Cir. 1978) (§ 1983 liability requires personal participation or affirmative acts causing deprivation)
- Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir. 2009) (retaliation requires protected activity to be a substantial or motivating factor)
- McCollum v. California Dep't of Corr. and Rehab., 647 F.3d 870 (9th Cir. 2011) (retaliation claims require direct or circumstantial evidence of retaliatory motive)
- Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266 (9th Cir. 1982) (vague or conclusory allegations insufficient to state civil rights claims)