Scalant v. Santa Cruz County Sheriffs Department Administration
3:24-cv-04516
| N.D. Cal. | Apr 15, 2025Background
- Alberto Scalant, a pretrial detainee at Santa Cruz County Jail, filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging due process and retaliation violations.
- His original and first amended complaints were previously dismissed with leave to amend; this opinion reviews his second amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
- Scalant alleges due process violations at a disciplinary hearing (stemming from a cell search for contraband) and ongoing retaliation for filing grievances and lawsuits against jail staff.
- The disciplinary outcome resulted only in a loss of commissary privileges, not more severe punishment.
- Plaintiff's allegations of retaliation largely lack specificity as to which defendants were involved and what specific actions were taken in response to protected conduct.
- The court dismissed the due process claim without leave to amend and dismissed the retaliation claim with one final opportunity to amend with specific facts by May 15, 2025.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process violation from disciplinary hearing | Disciplinary sanction violated his rights due to deputy's conduct | No federal claim; no constitutional violation | Dismissed; loss of commissary privileges is not constitutionally protected or punitive |
| Retaliation for protected conduct | Retaliatory actions (searches, housing moves, phone/communication limits) due to grievances and lawsuit filings | Arguments insufficiently detailed; not all defendants identified | Dismissed with leave to amend; must specify defendants, actions, and links to protected conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must state a facially plausible claim to relief)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (tests for due process violations/conditions amounting to punishment for pretrial detainees)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (§ 1983 claims require violation of federal right by state actor)
- Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. 1994) (courts need not assume legal conclusions as facts)
- Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements necessary for inmate First Amendment retaliation claims)
- Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 1995) (retaliation claims require showing of improper motive, no penological justification)