Suresh Eswaran v. Gavin Newsom, et al.

Summary

The Eastern District of California screened Suresh Eswaran’s amended complaint alleging that California officials violated his First Amendment and due process rights after a proposed prisoner-rehabilitation program was not adopted. The court held that the allegations did not establish a protected property interest, a viable First Amendment retaliation or censorship claim, or sufficiently connected claims concerning lost business opportunities and law-enforcement conduct. The amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, giving plaintiff one final opportunity to file a second amended complaint or voluntarily dismiss the action.

Holdings

1. The amended complaint did not state a cognizable due process or substantive due process claim because the proposed contract was never signed or finalized and the program was never adopted; therefore, plaintiff did not adequately allege a deprivation of life, liberty, property, or federally entitled process.
2. The amended complaint failed to state a First Amendment retaliation claim because it did not adequately allege injury in fact, a sufficient causal connection between the complained-of conduct and the injury, and a likelihood that the injury would be redressed by a favorable decision.
3. The allegations concerning lost business opportunities, reluctant podcast guests, and a visit to plaintiff's family home by law-enforcement officers were too vague and insufficiently connected to plaintiff's other claims to survive screening.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the amended complaint stated a due process or substantive due process claim based on the failure to finalize or adopt the proposed state contract.
2. Whether the alleged muting of plaintiff's microphone and other alleged conduct stated a First Amendment retaliation or censorship claim.
3. Whether plaintiff's allegations concerning lost business opportunities, reluctant podcast guests, and a law-enforcement visit were sufficiently specific and connected to state a cognizable constitutional claim.

Disposition

dismissed