Bejarano v. Lynch

Summary

The document is an order and findings and recommendations in a prisoner civil-rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The magistrate judge concludes that the second amended complaint fails to state First Amendment retaliation and Fourteenth Amendment due-process claims, recommends dismissal without leave to amend, and recommends denial of a preliminary injunction. The court denies the motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice.

Holdings

1. The official-capacity claims failed to state a claim. Damages claims against state officers in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, while the alleged prospective official-capacity claims failed because plaintiff did not specify concrete prospective relief or allege the required connection between the defendants and enforcement of the challenged conduct. The claims against the wardens also failed because plaintiff alleged no policy or custom supporting entity liability under § 1983.
2. Plaintiff failed to state a First Amendment retaliation claim because self-representation in a criminal matter arises under the Sixth Amendment rather than the First Amendment, and, even assuming self-representation could constitute protected conduct, the complaint did not allege that the defendants knew of plaintiff's self-representation or acted because of it.
3. Plaintiff failed to state a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim because prisoners have no constitutionally protected liberty interest in contact visitation, and loss of contact visitation is an ordinary incident of prison life rather than an atypical and significant hardship.
4. Dismissal without leave to amend was recommended because plaintiff had already received a final opportunity to amend and the identified deficiencies could not be cured by further amendment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the second amended complaint stated a First Amendment retaliation claim based on plaintiff's alleged self-representation in court.
2. Whether the second amended complaint stated a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim based on allegedly false disciplinary reports, hearing procedures, and loss of contact visitations.
3. Whether the official-capacity claims stated a claim for damages or prospective injunctive or declaratory relief.
4. Whether the complaint violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18 by joining unrelated claims against multiple defendants.
5. Whether plaintiff was entitled to a preliminary injunction.
6. Whether plaintiff was entitled to appointment of counsel.

Disposition

other