Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Johndell Henderson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint against Salinas Valley State Prison personnel, including the Chief Medical Officer, several nurses, and correctional officer Juliana Picazo. He alleges that they violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act by causing him to be injected with a Moderna vaccine despite his sincerely held religious beliefs. The complaint also describes medical conditions the vaccine allegedly caused, an alleged attempt by staff to renege on an agreement to keep him in a single cell if he dismissed a group appeal, and allegations about Picazo, whom other officers purportedly accused of conspiring with a prisoner to have prisoners, including Henderson, killed.
The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), which requires it to identify cognizable claims and dismiss those that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek damages from immune defendants. Henderson also referred to medical care he received at CSP-Lancaster in Los Angeles. As to the claims that ultimately proceeded, he alleges that on one occasion in 2017 Picazo refused to give Black prisoners their packages. He further alleges that after prisoners complained, Picazo and an officer named Avalos left a note on the podium saying no packages would be passed out on weekdays because three identified cells had complained to the Lieutenant. These facts are allegations taken from the complaint, not findings.
The Court’s Holding
The court dismissed all vaccine-related claims and the claims about the single-cell agreement as duplicative of claims Henderson raised in an earlier case, Henderson v. Thomas, No. 22-cv-02166-NW (N.D. Cal., filed Apr. 6, 2022). It reasoned that an in forma pauperis complaint merely repeating pending or previously litigated claims may be abusive under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, citing Ninth and Fifth Circuit authority. The order does not grant leave to amend as to those claims. It warns that continued duplicative or frivolous filings may lead to application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which would bar proceeding in forma pauperis in future actions absent imminent danger of serious physical injury.
Any claims about healthcare at CSP-Lancaster were dismissed without prejudice to Henderson pursuing them in the proper venue, citing 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(2). That dismissal is not a merits ruling and leaves him free to file a separate suit in the appropriate district.
Liberally construing the complaint, the court found a cognizable Equal Protection claim against Picazo for allegedly refusing to give Black, but not Hispanic, prisoners their packages and stating that Black prisoners who complained would not receive them. It also found arguable First Amendment retaliation claims against Picazo and Avalos based on the note, since filing grievances is protected activity. The court observed that, as pleaded, the claims may be untimely, but did not decide that question. These are screening determinations only, and no defendant has yet responded. The court ordered service through CDCR's e-service pilot program and set a schedule requiring a dispositive motion within 90 days of service, an opposition within 28 days, and a reply within 14 days. It also allowed discovery without further court order.
Key Takeaways
- A screening court may dismiss as duplicative and abusive an in forma pauperis prisoner complaint that repeats claims from an earlier case, and persistent duplicative filings risk the § 1915(g) restriction.
- Dismissal of duplicative claims differs from the without-prejudice dismissal of the CSP-Lancaster claims, which Henderson may refile in the proper venue.
- At screening, allegations that Black prisoners, but not Hispanic prisoners, were denied their packages were enough for a liberally construed Equal Protection claim.
- A prison retaliation claim requires adverse action because of protected conduct that chills First Amendment rights and does not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal, and complaining about staff conduct is protected.
- Allowing claims to proceed past screening does not resolve their merits or timeliness, which defendants may raise in their dispositive motion.
Why It Matters
The order shows how § 1915A screening is used to prune repetitive prisoner litigation while letting plausible claims move forward against the officers tied to them. The vaccine and single-cell claims do not proceed in this case, and only Picazo and Avalos are ordered served.
This is an unpublished district court screening order, not a precedential opinion, and it decides nothing on the merits. A possible limitations defense remains open, as does whether Henderson can prove his allegations.