Jackson v. Taylor

Background

Arthur D. Jackson, who was incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison, filed a civil-rights complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that on December 7, 2019, during a pat-down search, Correctional Officer Matthew Taylor grabbed and squeezed Jackson’s penis and scrotum for approximately 15 to 20 seconds, continuing after Jackson removed Taylor’s hand and demanded that Taylor release him. Jackson alleged that Correctional Officer Todan Ascensio stood by without intervening.

Jackson further alleged that, after he told the officers he would file a sexual-assault complaint, Taylor retaliated by filing a misconduct report against him. He alleged that Taylor and Ascensio also conducted a lengthy retaliatory cell search that left his cell in total disarray.

Screening analysis

Because Jackson was a prisoner seeking relief from government officials, the court conducted preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At this stage, the court had to identify claims that could proceed and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also stated that pleadings filed without a lawyer must be read liberally.

The court explained that sexual harassment or abuse of an inmate by a corrections officer can violate the Eighth Amendment. It concluded that Jackson’s allegations about Taylor’s conduct, together with the allegation that Ascensio failed to intervene, arguably stated an Eighth Amendment claim under § 1983 against both officers.

The court also described the requirements for a First Amendment retaliation claim in prison. It concluded that Jackson’s allegations that Taylor filed a misconduct report and that Taylor and Ascensio conducted a retaliatory cell search after Jackson threatened to file a sexual-assault complaint arguably stated retaliation claims under § 1983. The opinion cited authority recognizing that a prisoner cannot be retaliated against for threatening to sue.

Order

The court ordered that Matthew Taylor and Todan Ascensio be served at San Quentin State Prison through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program. It directed the defendants to serve and file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion within 90 days after service of the order, unless they informed the court that the case could not be resolved that way. The order set deadlines for Jackson’s opposition and the defendants’ reply, and it authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court also required the parties to serve their filings on one another and directed Jackson to keep the court and parties informed of any address change and to comply with court orders. This was an order allowing the identified claims to proceed to service and further litigation; it was not a final decision on the merits.