Owens v. Fugate

Background

Christian Owens, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. He alleged that correctional officers retaliated against him for filing an October 23, 2019 grievance against C. Bellinger for misconduct and abuse of authority. The complaint named C. Bellinger, J. Frawley, D. Fugate, and P. Sherman in their individual and official capacities.

Owens alleged that he was subjected to three cell searches within two weeks. He said that one search was not documented, another was conducted by Frawley, and that after the December 2, 2019 search his belongings had been dumped on the floor and he had not received a search slip. He also alleged that, between December 25, 2019, and January 11, 2020, Fugate made it difficult to obtain grievance forms, threatened to create a reason to write Owens up for a rules violation, and told inmates that he would not grant cell requests because Owens had filed a grievance against Bellinger. Owens further alleged that Sherman threw clothing over a tier after Owens asked for his breakfast and said, “Keep talking Owens, keep talking.”

Screening standard

Because Owens was a prisoner seeking relief from governmental officers, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 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. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a federal right was violated by a person acting under state law.

For a prison retaliation claim under the First Amendment, the court explained that a prisoner must allege 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.

Ruling

The court held that the complaint stated a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim against Fugate. Unlike the allegations against the other officers, the allegations against Fugate included specific statements suggesting that he intended to take adverse action because of Owens’s grievance and to discourage Owens from filing additional grievances.

The court dismissed the First Amendment retaliation claim against Bellinger, Frawley, and Sherman with leave to amend. As to Bellinger, Owens did not identify a retaliatory action by Bellinger and did not provide enough facts linking Bellinger to the actions allegedly taken by Frawley and Sherman. As to Frawley and Sherman, the court found that Owens’s explanation for their conduct was speculative and conclusory.

The court ordered service on Fugate through the applicable California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation electronic-service process. Owens could pursue claims against the other three defendants by filing an amended complaint within 28 days of the order. The court also set procedures for later dispositive motions, discovery, communications, and prosecution of the case.