Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01462/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01462-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
E. Aguirre
Defendant
Eddie Hamilton
Plaintiff
D. Lopez
Defendant

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDDIE HAMILTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. LOPEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01462-BAM (PC)

ORDER FINDING PLAINTIFF MAY 

PROCEED ON COGNIZABLE CLAIMS

(ECF No. 1)

Plaintiff Eddie Hamilton (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on October 

16, 2019, is currently before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 1.) 

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or 

malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief 

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b).

Case 1:19-cv-01462-JLT-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/27/20 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 

is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, 

do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required 

to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 

2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient 

factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv.,

572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not 

sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard.

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

II. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff is currently housed at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility 

(“CSATF”) in Corcoran, California, where the events in the complaint are alleged to have occurred. 

Plaintiff asserts a claim for retaliation in violation of his First Amendment rights against 

Correctional Lieutenant D. Lopez and Correctional Officer E. Aguirre.

Plaintiff alleges as follows: At all times relevant to his claim, Plaintiff was incarcerated at 

CSATF and assigned to Facility F. On July 20, 2019, Defendant Lopez was interviewing Plaintiff 

regarding his appeal pertaining to A1A program (yard). Defendant Lopez wanted Plaintiff to drop 

the appeal. Defendant Lopez asked, “Are you sure you want to do this.” Plaintiff stated, “Yeah.” 

(ECF No. 1 at 8.) Defendant Lopez then asked Plaintiff what he did at work. Plaintiff said that he 

plays cards and watches TV until he is called to assist an inmate. Plaintiff claims that he never 

stated that he remained in the dayroom watching TV and playing with other inmates all throughout 

his work hours or that he is rarely called upon to conduct ADA-related work. Plaintiff also did not 

indicate that he attended all yard recreational activities consistent with his assigned tier rotation. 

Plaintiff claims that those statements, made by Defendant Lopez, were false and filing in his RVR 

Case 1:19-cv-01462-JLT-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/27/20 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Counseling No: 006878530.

Defendant Aguirre ordered Plaintiff to drop his appeal. When Plaintiff declined, Defendant 

Aguirre stated, “Why don’t you drop it, now I’m going to write people up.” (ECF No. 1 at 9.) 

Plaintiff stated that he would not drop the appeal. Defendant Aguirre then left his assigned post, 

went to Defendant Lopez’s office, came back with the RVR and gave it to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff asserts that his appeal was similar to approximately 75 other appeals that pertained 

to A1A yard time. Plaintiff believes that Defendant Lopez interviewed other inmates with similar 

appeals and approximately 50 of those inmates dropped their appeals because they were threatened 

with receiving an RVR. 

Plaintiff claims that Defendant Lopez issued the RVR because Plaintiff did not drop his 

grievance and that this had a chilling effect. Plaintiff also asserts that Defendants took adverse 

action against him by issuing an RVR for not dropping his grievance. 

As relief, Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, along with compensatory and punitive 

damages. 

III. Discussion

Allegations of retaliation against a prisoner’s First Amendment rights to speech or to 

petition the government may support a section 1983 claim. Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532 

(9th Cir. 1985); see also Valandingham v. Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135 (9th Cir. 1989); Pratt v. 

Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir. 1995). “Within the prison context, a viable claim of First 

Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some 

adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner's protected conduct, and that such 

action (4) chilled the inmate's exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not 

reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567– 68 

(9th Cir. 2005).

Plaintiff’s allegations indicate that Defendants issued him a Rules Violation Report for 

disciplinary reasons because Plaintiff would not drop his grievance. At the pleading stage, 

Plaintiff's complaint states a cognizable retaliation claim against Defendants Lopez and Aguirre. 

///

Case 1:19-cv-01462-JLT-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/27/20 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

IV. Conclusion and Order

For the reason stated, the Court finds that Plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim against 

Defendants Lopez and Aguirre for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on October 16, 2019 (ECF No. 

1), against Defendants Lopez and Aguirre for retaliation in violation of the First 

Amendment; and

2. A separate order will issue regarding service of the complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 24, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01462-JLT-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/27/20 Page 4 of 4