Kakowski v. SGT Gonzales

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California screened Brian Kakowski’s second amended prisoner civil-rights complaint. The court allowed a First Amendment retaliation claim to proceed against Sergeant Gonzales and Officer Torres, dismissed all other claims and Lieutenant Moore without further leave to amend, and directed the U.S. Marshal to effect service. The order was dated April 1, 2025.

Holdings

1. The retaliation claim against Sergeant Gonzales and Officer Torres plausibly stated a claim and may proceed beyond screening.
2. The retaliation claim against Lieutenant Moore failed to state a claim because the complaint did not plausibly allege that Moore acted because of Kakowski’s protected conduct or that his conduct lacked a legitimate correctional purpose.
3. The backward-looking access-to-the-courts claim failed because Kakowski did not identify a remedy that was unavailable in the underlying litigation or otherwise clarify the injury and remedy sought.
4. The conspiracy claim failed because the complaint alleged no facts showing an agreement or meeting of the minds to violate Kakowski’s constitutional rights.
5. The due-process claim based on the Rules Violation Report hearing failed for the same reasons stated in the court’s prior dismissal order and was dismissed without leave to amend.
6. Because the retaliation claim survived screening against Gonzales and Torres and Kakowski was proceeding in forma pauperis, the court directed the Clerk and United States Marshal to issue and effect service.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the second amended complaint plausibly stated a First Amendment retaliation claim against Gonzales, Torres, and Moore.
2. Whether Kakowski adequately pleaded a backward-looking access-to-the-courts claim based on an allegedly reduced settlement offer in a prior case.
3. Whether Kakowski adequately pleaded a conspiracy to violate his constitutional rights.
4. Whether Kakowski adequately pleaded a due-process claim based on the disciplinary hearing and finding of guilt.
5. Whether the surviving claims should be served by the United States Marshal.

Disposition

other