Hill v. Tyler

Background

Cymeyon V. Hill, a civil detainee in custody at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed a civil-rights complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His amended complaint was the operative complaint. Hill named M. B. Atchley, identified as the prison’s Acting Warden, as the defendant. Hill sought punitive damages.

The court also considered Hill’s motion asking it to investigate his history and case file and to contact the prison trust office about financial transactions concerning the case. The court treated that filing as a request for a waiver of the filing fee.

Retaliation Claim

Hill’s only claim was retaliation based on supervisory liability. He alleged, in general terms, that unnamed prison officials destroyed or discarded his legal mail after he filed grievances about legal-mail issues. He held Atchley responsible based on supervisory responsibility, policy implementation, and management of officer misconduct.

The court explained that a First Amendment retaliation claim requires facts showing that the plaintiff engaged in protected activity, suffered adverse action that could discourage an ordinarily firm person from continuing that activity, and experienced a substantial causal connection between the activity and the adverse action. The court found Hill’s allegations conclusory and insufficient to establish those elements. It also found that Hill did not directly connect Atchley to the alleged conduct. A supervisor cannot be liable under § 1983 solely because of the supervisor’s position; liability requires personal involvement or a sufficient causal connection to the constitutional violation.

Ruling

The court DISMISSED the amended complaint with leave to amend. Hill was given 28 days from the filing date of the order to submit a second amended complaint correcting the identified deficiencies. The court instructed that the new complaint must use the specified caption and case number, include the words “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page, and include all claims and allegations because it would replace the earlier pleadings. The court stated that failing to file on time or failing to correct the deficiencies would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers DENIED Hill’s request for a fee waiver because the court could waive prepayment of the filing fee but not the filing fee itself. The court noted that a separate written order would grant Hill permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee and would not collect a partial filing fee at that time. The order also directed the clerk to send Hill a blank civil-rights complaint form and terminated the docket entry for the fee-waiver request.