Hill v. Borba

Background

Cymeyon Hill, a civil detainee held at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed a civil-rights complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Hill named SVSP psychiatrists Dr. Borba and Dr. M. Tyler as defendants and sought injunctive relief and monetary damages. The opinion states that Hill had been civilly committed in 1997 after pleading not guilty by reason of insanity.

Hill alleged that Dr. Borba retaliated against him for filing a civil action by filing false medical documents to place him on involuntary medication. Hill also alleged that Dr. Borba threatened him, directed prison officials to tamper with his food, and caused federal legal mail to be discarded. Hill further alleged that Dr. Borba and Dr. Tyler prescribed Zoloft, which caused severe liver and stomach pain, and denied his requests for treatment, resulting in chronic pain.

Screening and Claims

Because Hill sought relief from government officers or employees, the court conducted the preliminary review required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That review requires the court to identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also stated that claims under § 1983 require an alleged violation of a federal right by a person acting under state law.

The court found that Hill stated a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim against Dr. Borba based on the allegations described above. The court dismissed Hill’s claim against Dr. Borba for verbal harassment and threats, explaining that verbal harassment, abuse, and a mere threat do not state a constitutional claim under § 1983. The court also found that Hill stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Dr. Borba and Dr. Tyler.

Disposition and Case Management

The court dismissed the verbal-harassment-and-threats claim. It ordered the clerk to send the lawsuit, waiver-of-service forms, complaint materials, and the order to Dr. Borba and Dr. Tyler, and to send copies to the State Attorney General’s Office and Hill. The defendants were ordered to answer the amended complaint under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The order set a schedule for dispositive motions, including summary judgment or another motion that could resolve the case. It also described procedures for motions based on failure to exhaust available administrative remedies, opposition and reply deadlines, and possible preliminary fact-finding by the judge. Discovery was authorized under the Federal Rules, including depositions of Hill and other confined witnesses. The order also imposed communication, address-update, and case-prosecution requirements on Hill and allowed extensions of time upon a showing of good cause.

Classification

This is a procedural order because it was a preliminary screening order that dismissed one claim and allowed other claims to proceed; it did not enter final judgment on the underlying retaliation or medical-care allegations.