Hill v. Perez
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:21-cv-00446
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Hill v. Perez, Judge Rogers dismissed Hill’s complaint with leave to amend, denied discovery as premature, and required clearer retaliation allegations.
CyMeyon Hill must either file a corrected third amended complaint within 28 days or face dismissal of the action without prejudice. C. Martinez, Emily Perez, and M. B. Atchley were named defendants, and discovery was not allowed to begin at this stage.
What happened
In Hill v. Perez, CyMeyon Hill, who was in custody at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed a civil-rights complaint without a lawyer against C. Martinez, Emily Perez, and M. B. Atchley. Hill sought money damages and alleged that prison staff retaliated against him by refusing to process stimulus funds and responding negatively to his lawsuits or grievances.
The court found that Hill’s allegations were unclear and mostly conclusory. It said he needed to identify whether the protected activity was a lawsuit or a grievance, explain what adverse actions each defendant took, and allege how those actions harmed him. The court also found that Hill had not adequately connected Warden Atchley to the alleged violations.
Judge Rogers dismissed the second amended complaint with leave to amend within 28 days and denied Hill’s discovery motion as premature. The court stated that failing to amend on time or correct the identified problems would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Hill v. Perez · No. 4:21-cv-00446
- Yvonne Rogers
- July 29, 2021
Background
CyMeyon 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. The operative pleading was his second amended complaint. It named Accounting Supervisor C. Martinez, Accounting Employee Emily Perez, and Warden M. B. Atchley, and sought money damages.
Hill alleged that he filed for stimulus money and that the funds were sent to the prison. He claimed Martinez received the funds but refused to process them. Hill characterized that conduct as retaliation for a previous lawsuit. He also alleged that Martinez told him he would “pay a price” for filing grievance lawsuits and that Atchley ignored a grievance concerning Martinez’s conduct.
Hill also moved to conduct discovery and set a scheduling conference.
Screening Analysis
Because Hill sought relief from governmental employees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court explained that a complaint must provide enough factual detail to give defendants fair notice of the claim and must allege facts making the requested relief plausible. 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 law.
The court concluded that Hill’s retaliation allegations were difficult to understand and conclusory. The dates were confusing, including the date Hill said he filed a retaliation claim and the fact that this action had originally been filed in another federal district before being transferred. The court could not determine whether Hill alleged retaliation for filing this action, for filing an earlier lawsuit, or for using the prison grievance process.
The court explained that a First Amendment retaliation claim requires allegations that the plaintiff engaged in protected conduct, suffered an adverse action that could discourage an ordinary person from continuing that conduct, and can show a substantial connection between the protected conduct and the adverse action. The court found that Hill had not clearly alleged these required facts. It stated that an amended complaint needed to identify whether the protected conduct was a lawsuit or grievance, describe the retaliatory adverse action, and allege resulting harm.
The court separately found that Hill had not directly linked Atchley to the alleged misconduct. It also explained that a supervisor cannot be held liable under § 1983 merely because of the supervisor’s position; liability requires personal involvement or a sufficient causal connection to the alleged constitutional violation.
Rulings
The court ordered:
- Hill’s motion to conduct discovery and set a scheduling conference was DENIED as premature.
- The second amended complaint was DISMISSED with leave to amend. Hill was given 28 days to file a third amended complaint correcting the identified deficiencies.
- The third amended complaint had to use the case caption and civil case number specified in the order and had to include all claims and allegations because it would replace the prior pleadings.
- The court stated that failure to meet the deadline or correct the deficiencies would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice.
- The clerk was directed to send Hill a blank civil-rights complaint form.
The order did not decide whether Hill ultimately could prove retaliation. It found that the allegations in the second amended complaint were not sufficiently clear and detailed to proceed at that stage.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.