Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Kevin Lewis Hayes, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging that Correctional Officer Kristin Alvarado retaliated against him for filing grievances by ordering him to remove a window covering and issuing a disciplinary violation on August 27, 2025. Hayes claimed the window covering provided privacy from female officers while using the bathroom and that he had previously been disciplined for indecent exposure based on fabricated allegations. The court previously screened his amended complaint and granted leave to amend. The second amended complaint was then before the court for screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Hayes alleged that Officer Soccedo initially told him to remove the window covering but then said he could keep it covered. One minute later, Alvarado ordered him to remove it, threatened a cell search and disciplinary violation, and stated "you started this shit when you wrote me up." Hayes filed grievances against Alvarado on March 10 and May 29, 2025, and contended the August 27 actions were retaliation. He also alleged Alvarado refused to sign paperwork for him in retaliation. Prison regulations prohibited window coverings, and a memorandum issued the same day confirmed all window coverings were prohibited. Other inmates were ordered to remove coverings and complied.
The Court’s Holding
The court dismissed the action with prejudice for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Applying the five-element First Amendment retaliation test from Rhodes v. Robinson, the court found Hayes failed to plausibly allege that the disciplinary violation was motivated by his prior grievances filed several months earlier. His theory that Alvarado must have read a grievance response on August 28 and therefore retaliated on August 27 was speculative and failed to establish the required causal connection. The court also held Hayes failed to show Alvarado's enforcement of the window-covering rule did not advance a legitimate correctional goal, noting the rule was uniformly enforced and Hayes did not contest his violation of it.
Regarding the due process claim based on Alvarado's alleged refusal to sign paperwork, the court found Hayes provided no details on when this occurred or what protected conduct caused the alleged retaliation. Bare allegations were insufficient to state a First Amendment retaliation claim, and violation of California prison regulations alone does not establish a federal constitutional violation under Cousins v. Lockyer. Because Hayes had multiple opportunities to amend but repeated the same deficiencies, further amendment would be futile under Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp.
Key Takeaways
- The court applied the Rhodes v. Robinson five-element test for First Amendment retaliation in prison: adverse action, protected conduct, causal connection, chilling effect, and no legitimate penological interest.
- Hayes's speculative allegation that Alvarado read a grievance response on August 28 and therefore retaliated on August 27 failed to establish the required causal connection between protected conduct and adverse action.
- Enforcement of a valid prison regulation (prohibiting window coverings for security/line-of-sight reasons) that is uniformly applied to all inmates advances a legitimate correctional goal, defeating the retaliation claim's fifth element.
- Allegations of a prison official refusing to sign paperwork, without details linking the refusal to protected conduct or showing a constitutional violation, fail to state either a retaliation or due process claim.
- After multiple opportunities to amend, dismissal with prejudice is appropriate where the plaintiff repeatedly fails to cure identified pleading deficiencies, as further amendment would be futile.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the plausibility standard under Twombly and Iqbal in prisoner civil rights cases screened under § 1915A. It illustrates that temporal proximity alone — especially when the alleged retaliatory act precedes the supposed triggering event — is insufficient to plead causation in a First Amendment retaliation claim. The ruling also confirms that uniform enforcement of legitimate prison regulations, even if other officers previously declined to enforce them, defeats a retaliation claim's requirement that the action not advance a legitimate penological interest.