Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Marion Robinson, a state prisoner at San Quentin Rehabilitation Center proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The complaint alleged two primary sets of facts.
First, in 2025, Defendant Johnson searched Robinson’s cell, destroyed personal property, and stated the search was conducted “because I can.” On October 22, 2025, Johnson placed Robinson in a holding cage, conducted a strip search, and confiscated papers without a receipt, allegedly because Robinson had questioned the prior search.
Robinson filed a grievance in November 2025 regarding these incidents.
Second, on March 28, 2026, after a family visit, Defendants Henderson, Kyte, and Perez stopped Robinson and performed a clothed pat-down search.
Robinson alleged this second search was retaliation for his November 2025 grievance against Johnson.
The Court screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), which requires dismissal of prisoner claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek monetary relief from immune defendants.
The Court’s Holding
The Court dismissed the complaint with leave to file an amended complaint by November 13, 2026.
The retaliation claims were dismissed because Robinson failed to plausibly allege that his verbal questioning of a search constituted protected First Amendment activity, and failed to connect the March 2026 search by three officers to the grievance filed against a different officer (Johnson) months earlier, offering no facts showing the searching officers were aware of the grievance.
The property claims were dismissed under Parratt v.
Taylor and Hudson v.
Palmer, as the alleged deprivations appeared random and unauthorized, and California provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy via state tort law (Cal.
Gov’t Code §§ 810-895).
The Court warned that failure to file a compliant amended complaint on the Court’s form would result in dismissal under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
Key Takeaways
- Verbal questioning of a cell search, without more, does not plausibly constitute protected First Amendment activity sufficient to support a retaliation claim.
- A retaliation claim requires factual allegations linking the adverse action to the protected conduct; a four-month gap and different actors (Johnson vs. Henderson, Kyte, Perez) require specific allegations of the latter’s knowledge of the grievance.
- Intentional or negligent deprivation of prisoner property by state actors does not state a federal due process claim if the deprivation was random and unauthorized and an adequate state post-deprivation remedy exists.
- California’s Government Claims Act (Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 810-895) provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy that satisfies due process for property deprivations.
- An amended complaint in this district must be filed on the Court’s form, bear the caption “FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT,” and include all claims and defendants without incorporating prior pleadings by reference.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the application of the § 1915A screening standard to pro se prisoner litigation in the Ninth Circuit.
It reinforces the pleading requirements for First Amendment retaliation claims in the prison context under Rhodes v.
Robinson, specifically the need to allege protected conduct, a causal connection, and the absence of legitimate penological goals.
The ruling also applies the Parratt/Hudson doctrine to bar federal due process claims for property loss where state tort remedies are adequate, directing the plaintiff to state court for such relief.
The order serves as a procedural roadmap for the plaintiff, mandating strict compliance with local formatting rules and the prohibition on incorporation by reference under Ferdik v.
Bonzelet.