Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Carlos Dawson filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning events at Salinas Valley State Prison. He alleged that a fellow inmate stabbed him on July 16, 2025, and that correctional officers removed his clothing and personal items while preparing him for medical evacuation to an outside hospital. According to the complaint, those belongings were not returned despite his requests. The court reviewed the pleading under the preliminary-screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A(a), which apply when a prisoner seeks redress from governmental entities or their officers or employees.
The screening statute requires the court to identify cognizable claims and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek monetary relief from an immune defendant. The court also explained that pro se pleadings receive liberal construction, while the plausibility standard requires sufficient factual matter to support a reasonable inference of liability. A § 1983 claim must allege both a violation of a right secured by federal law and conduct by a person acting under color of state law.
The Court’s Holding
Construing the complaint liberally, the court found that Dawson stated due process claims against Correctional Officers M. Hernandez, A. Franco, and Garcia based on the alleged removal and continued nonreturn of his property. It ordered the Clerk to issue summons and serve, without prepayment of fees, the operative complaint and its attachments on those three officers. Service proceeds through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s e-service program: the Clerk serves CDCR by email with the complaint, attachments, the order, a CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver form, and a summons, and any defendant who does not waive service is later served through the United States Marshals Service. The order did not decide the merits of the due process claims; it determined that they were cognizable and could proceed to a response from the defendants.
The court dismissed all other claims and defendants. It rejected the allegations that Howard Moseley, J. Barchacky, and Sergeant R. Salgado mishandled grievances, explaining that involvement in reviewing an administrative grievance does not necessarily show awareness of, or participation in, the underlying violation. Ruling against a prisoner on an administrative complaint likewise does not cause or contribute to that violation. The separate claim that Warden Kelly Santoro allowed a “code of silence” to shield the grievance reviewers was dismissed as conclusory.
The remaining defendants must file an answer in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Separately, on or before March 15, 2027, they must file a dispositive motion or a notice regarding such a motion. An exhaustion defense based on 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) must be raised in a summary-judgment motion as required by Albino v. Baca. Dawson’s opposition is due 45 days after the motion is filed, and any reply is due 15 days after the opposition. Discovery may proceed without an additional order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local Rule 16-1, and no hearing will be held on any motion unless the court specifically orders one.
Key Takeaways
- Dawson’s allegations about clothing and personal items not returned after his medical evacuation were sufficient at screening for due process claims against Officers M. Hernandez, A. Franco, and Garcia.
- The court dismissed the grievance-related claims because reviewing or rejecting an administrative grievance does not itself establish participation in the underlying constitutional violation.
- The claim against Warden Kelly Santoro concerning an alleged “code of silence” was dismissed as conclusory rather than allowed to proceed.
- The surviving defendants must answer under the Federal Rules and, separately, must file a dispositive motion or a notice regarding such a motion by March 15, 2027; an administrative-exhaustion defense must be presented through summary judgment under Albino v. Baca.
- The order permits discovery under the ordinary rules and sets briefing deadlines, no hearing will be held on a motion unless specifically ordered, and the merits of Dawson’s surviving due process claims remain unresolved.
Why It Matters
The order separates a prisoner’s potentially actionable property-related due process allegations from claims based only on grievance handling or conclusory supervisory accusations. It applies the principle that liability requires causing or participating in the underlying violation, not merely taking part in an administrative review.
The decision also establishes the litigation framework for the surviving claims, including CDCR e-service with possible USMS follow-up, the separate answer obligation, the March 15, 2027 dispositive-motion-or-notice deadline, discovery, and summary-judgment procedures. Its detailed instructions require defendants to give Dawson the prescribed notice about opposing summary judgment when such a motion is filed and served.