Terry v. Dorsey

Background

Billy G. Terry, a state inmate proceeding pro se, sued prison staff at San Quentin State Prison under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that Defendant Deyoung authored a disciplinary report at the direction of Defendant Franco and that Defendant Dorsey orchestrated it. Terry alleged that Rony Ortiz, whom Terry described as his LGBT inmate partner, was coerced into claiming that five inmates, apparently including Terry, had raped him by oral copulation.

Terry alleged that the defendants conspired to violate his and Ortiz’s civil rights, made fraudulent claims to abuse federal funding connected to the Prison Rape Elimination Act, retaliated against him for reporting staff sexual misconduct, and defamed him. He also alleged that Defendants Prada and Feston conspired to convict him in the disciplinary proceeding before he was found guilty. He sought reversal of the oral-copulation charge and damages.

Screening and analysis

Because Terry was a prisoner suing governmental employees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal right and conduct by a person acting under state authority.

The court found the allegations concerning the Prison Rape Elimination Act insufficient. Terry did not explain what the acronym meant or how the defendants’ alleged conduct violated his civil rights. The court also stated that the Act has not been found to create a private cause of action for inmates. The opinion granted leave to amend so Terry could try to allege a sufficient § 1983 claim, while stating that any claim based on the Act itself failed to state a claim for relief.

The court also found the retaliation allegations insufficient. A prison-retaliation claim requires allegations that a state actor took adverse action because of protected conduct, that the action chilled the prisoner’s First Amendment activity, and that the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. The court said Terry might have alleged the first three elements by claiming that staff wrote a false report because he complained about staff sexual misconduct, but he did not allege facts about chilling or the absence of a legitimate correctional purpose. The court granted leave to amend and directed him to describe the alleged staff misconduct in more detail.

As to the disciplinary proceeding, the court explained that due process requires certain minimum procedures when a disciplinary sanction involves a sufficiently serious deprivation. Terry did not identify the sanctions he received or allege that he was denied any required procedural protections. The court granted leave to amend this claim. It also explained that if the disciplinary proceeding resulted in loss of good-time credits and success would necessarily lead to earlier release, Terry would have to bring that due-process claim in a separate petition challenging his custody. Otherwise, he could pursue it in this action.

The court held that defamation alone is not a constitutional claim under § 1983, even when the alleged defamation is committed under state authority. It therefore dismissed the defamation claim for failure to state a claim for relief.

Disposition

The court ordered that Terry’s defamation claim be dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief. It dismissed the remainder of his claims with leave to amend. Terry was given 28 days from the filing of the order to file an amended complaint meeting the court’s requirements. The amended complaint would replace the original complaint, and claims or defendants omitted from it would no longer be part of the action. If Terry did not respond as ordered, the action would be dismissed without prejudice and without further notice. Judge Beth Labson Freeman also directed the clerk to send Terry two complaint forms and a form petition for a separate custody challenge.