Summary
The document contains findings and recommendations in a prisoner’s First Amendment retaliation action against a California Medical Facility litigation coordinator. The magistrate judge recommends denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss and denies the request for judicial notice, concluding that the complaint plausibly alleges adverse action, retaliatory intent, chilling effect, and the absence of a legitimate correctional goal.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiff plausibly alleged that defendant took an adverse action causing more than de minimis harm.
- Whether plaintiff plausibly alleged a causal connection between the denial of court-ordered telephone calls and his protected litigation activity.
- Whether the alleged denial of telephone calls could objectively chill a person of ordinary firmness from exercising First Amendment rights.
- Whether the alleged conduct reasonably advanced a legitimate correctional goal.
- Whether the court could take judicial notice of the truth of factual assertions contained in submitted court records and regulations while deciding the Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
Holdings
- The court should not use judicial notice to accept the truth of disputed factual assertions in the submitted criminal-case records, prior federal-court filings, and related materials. Judicial notice may establish the existence and authenticity of a court opinion or public record, but not the truth of facts recited in it; regulations and laws generally do not require judicial notice under Federal Rule of Evidence 201.
- Plaintiff plausibly stated a First Amendment retaliation claim by alleging that defendant denied court-ordered telephone calls needed for his criminal defense in retaliation for his pending lawsuit against defendant.
Key quotations
“For an inmate to state a First Amendment retaliation claim, he must allege that “(1) . . . a state actor took some adverse action against him (2) because of (3) his protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the . . . exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.”” (at 5)
“Because direct evidence of retaliatory intent rarely can be pleaded in a complaint, allegation of a chronology of events from which retaliation can be inferred is sufficient to survive dismissal.” (at 6)
“The court sees no legitimate correctional goal in defying a court order.” (at 7)
Factual background
Plaintiff was a state prisoner housed at California Medical Facility in February 2024 while representing himself in the guilt phase of his criminal case. The criminal court ordered that he receive two telephone calls per week for litigation purposes, but a sergeant allegedly denied the calls because defendant, the facility's Litigation Coordinator, ordered that they not be provided. Plaintiff alleged that defendant acted in retaliation for a 2022 lawsuit he had filed against her or the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and that the denial prevented him from communicating with witnesses and addressing his defense.
Procedural history
Plaintiff alleged that defendant, a prison litigation coordinator, retaliated against him by directing that he be denied court-ordered telephone calls needed to litigate his criminal case. Defendant moved to dismiss and requested judicial notice of numerous records. The court denied the request for judicial notice and recommended that the motion to dismiss be denied. The findings and recommendations were submitted to the assigned district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), subject to objections.
Remand instructions
No remand was ordered. The assigned district judge was to consider the findings and recommendations after the parties had an opportunity to file objections within fourteen days of service.