Hill v. Camacho

Background

Cymeyon Hill, a civil detainee being held at California State Prison—Sacramento, filed a complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal law that permits claims against people acting under state authority for violations of constitutional rights. The complaint concerned events at Salinas Valley State Prison, where Hill had previously been incarcerated. Hill named Certified Nursing Assistants Camacho and Valdez as defendants and sought monetary and punitive damages.

Hill alleged that on February 15, 2021, Camacho approached his cell, asked him to masturbate and show his penis, and threatened to punish him for filing lawsuits and grievances. Hill alleged that he complied because he was afraid and that the conduct continued for more than four weeks. Hill further alleged that on March 15, 2021, Camacho and Valdez threatened to punish him for filing grievances and lawsuits. He alleged that Camacho asked to see his penis, issued him a prison disciplinary form for indecent exposure, and laughed.

Screening and Claims

Because the complaint sought relief from prison staff, the court conducted the required preliminary screening. The court concluded that Hill stated a legally sufficient First Amendment retaliation claim against Camacho. A retaliation claim requires allegations that the plaintiff engaged in constitutionally protected activity, that the defendant took adverse action because of that activity, and that the protected activity substantially caused the adverse action.

The court dismissed the First Amendment retaliation claim against Valdez because Hill alleged that Valdez was with Camacho but did not allege that Valdez was present when Camacho asked to see Hill’s penis. The court described the allegations about Valdez’s retaliatory conduct as speculative and dismissed the claim with leave to amend. Hill was instructed to provide facts linking Valdez to the alleged retaliation; merely alleging that Valdez was present was not enough.

The court also dismissed any claim against Camacho and Valdez based on verbal harassment and threats. It relied on precedent holding that verbal harassment, abuse, and a mere threat generally do not state a claim under § 1983.

Disposition and Further Proceedings

The court ordered that the First Amendment retaliation claim against Camacho was cognizable and could proceed. It dismissed the verbal-harassment and threat claim against both defendants. It dismissed the First Amendment retaliation claim against Valdez with leave to amend and gave Hill 28 days to file an amended complaint. If Hill amended, the new complaint had to include the required caption and case number, use the court’s complaint form, and include the claims against Valdez and the retaliation claim against Camacho. If Hill did not amend on time, the order stated that all claims against Valdez would be dismissed, the original complaint would remain operative, and the case would proceed under the order.

The court referred the matter, along with other cases filed by Hill, to Magistrate Judge Robert Illman for global settlement proceedings through the Northern District of California’s Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program. The court directed that the remaining proceedings be stayed after the operative complaint was served on the defendant against whom a cognizable claim had been alleged. Camacho was designated for service.