Walker v. Chisman

Background

Keewin L. Walker, a prisoner at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this self-represented civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 provides a way to seek relief when a person acting under state authority violates rights protected by federal law. The court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires screening of a prisoner’s complaint against a government entity or employee.

Walker alleged that Mike Chisman, identified in the complaint as a healthcare facility maintenance custodian at Pelican Bay State Prison, made a racial statement and became verbally abusive after Walker confronted him. Walker further alleged that Chisman falsified an informational report, changed Walker’s work schedule in a way that affected his pay, and tried to create the incorrect impression that Walker was not performing his custodial duties. Walker alleged these actions were retaliation for confronting Chisman about the racial statement.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that verbal harassment alone does not violate a federal right under § 1983, even when the harassment is racially motivated. It therefore concluded that Walker’s allegation that Chisman made a racial statement did not state a § 1983 claim.

The court applied the standard for a First Amendment retaliation claim in the prison setting. That claim requires allegations that a state actor took adverse action because of protected conduct, that the action chilled the prisoner’s exercise of First Amendment rights, and that the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. Construing Walker’s self-represented complaint liberally, the court found that it stated a cognizable retaliation claim based on Walker’s complaint about Chisman’s racial statement.

Order

The court ruled that the complaint, liberally construed, stated a cognizable § 1983 retaliation claim against Chisman. All other claims were dismissed. The Clerk was directed to issue a summons, and the United States Marshal was directed to serve Chisman with the summons, complaint, and case-file documents without requiring advance payment of fees.

The court set January 10, 2020, as the deadline for Chisman to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion. Walker’s opposition was due February 7, 2020, and any reply from Chisman was due February 21, 2020. The court provided notices explaining that summary judgment could end the case and that Walker would need to present specific evidence, rather than relying only on the complaint, to show a genuine factual dispute. The court also stated that discovery could proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and warned Walker about service, address updates, prosecuting the case, and complying with court orders.

Judge Edward M. Chen signed the order on October 25, 2019.