Dena v. Tayman

Background

Jayvion T. Garr' Dena, a California state prisoner incarcerated at Ironwood State Prison, filed a self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Pelican Bay State Prison correctional counselor I Tayman. The plaintiff paid the filing fee. He alleged that, in or about August 2023, Mr. Burdett hired him as a peer mentor, but Tayman refused to place him on the peer-mentor job waiting list. According to the complaint, Tayman falsely stated that the plaintiff lacked a high school diploma and six months without disciplinary violations. The plaintiff alleged that his file showed he had a high school diploma and that his last rules violations were in July and October 2022.

The plaintiff further alleged that Tayman refused to place him on the list in retaliation for a grievance he filed against Tayman in October 2022 concerning Tayman’s refusal to process the plaintiff’s legal name change. The plaintiff sought $250,000 in damages and $250,000 in punitive damages.

Screening and Claim

Because the plaintiff is a prisoner seeking relief from a government employee, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires the court to identify claims that may proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or barred because the defendant is immune from monetary relief. The court also explained that a claim under § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federal right by a person acting under state authority.

Liberally construing the complaint, the court held that the alleged retaliation for grievance activity stated a cognizable First Amendment claim. The court described the claim as based on Tayman’s alleged adverse action—refusing to place the plaintiff on the peer-mentor waiting list—because of protected grievance activity and allegedly false reasons. A finding that a claim is cognizable means only that the claim may proceed past the initial screening stage; the order did not resolve the ultimate merits of the claim.

Order

Judge JON S. TIGA ordered that Tayman be served through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. The order directed the prison department to report within 40 days whether Tayman would waive service. If service was not waived, the clerk was directed to prepare documents for service by the United States Marshals Service.

The court also set procedures for the case. Tayman generally must file a summary-judgment or other dispositive motion within 91 days of the order, or notify the court before the deadline if the case cannot be resolved by summary judgment. The plaintiff’s opposition would be due 28 days after such a motion, and any reply would be due 14 days later. The court authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, required the plaintiff to serve copies of communications on Tayman or Tayman’s counsel, and reminded the plaintiff to prosecute the case and keep the court informed of address changes. The order did not enter judgment on the claim.