Hill v. J. Beltran

Background

CYMEYON HILL, a civil detainee being held at California State Prison—Sacramento, filed a civil-rights complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that events at Salinas Valley State Prison on August 4, 2020, violated his constitutional rights. He sought monetary and punitive damages.

The amended complaint named Property Officer E. PEREZ, Correctional Officer T. BELTRAN, and Sergeant E. BLACK. HILL alleged that he had filed a grievance against T. BELTRAN about a canteen issue. He claimed T. BELTRAN called him a “rat,” said she would “teach [him] a lesson” for filing complaints and grievances, and influenced E. BLACK to have other officers assault him after a dispute involving coverings on his cell window and unwanted canteen items. HILL also alleged that T. BELTRAN and E. PEREZ retaliated by destroying his personal property.

Screening standard

The court reviewed the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires screening of a prisoner’s civil-rights complaint against governmental officials. The court must identify claims that are legally sufficient and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a constitutional or federal right and action by a person acting under state law.

Claims and analysis

For a First Amendment retaliation claim, the court explained that a plaintiff must show protected activity, an adverse action that could discourage an ordinary person from continuing that activity, and a substantial causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action.

The court held that HILL stated a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim against T. BELTRAN and E. BLACK. “Cognizable” here means legally sufficient to proceed past the initial screening stage. The court did not find the same allegations sufficient against E. PEREZ because the allegations that PEREZ accompanied BELTRAN while property was destroyed were speculative and did not adequately connect PEREZ to the alleged retaliation.

The court dismissed HILL’s First Amendment retaliation claim against E. PEREZ with leave to amend. If HILL filed a second amended complaint, he was required to provide enough facts showing that PEREZ acted in retaliation for constitutionally protected conduct. The court stated that merely alleging PEREZ was present during BELTRAN’s actions would not be enough.

The court also dismissed the claim based on unauthorized destruction of HILL’s property for failure to state a claim. It reasoned that random and unauthorized loss or destruction of property does not support a § 1983 due-process claim when state law provides an adequate remedy after the deprivation. The court separately dismissed the allegations concerning BELTRAN’s verbal harassment and threats, explaining that verbal harassment, abuse, and a mere threat do not state a constitutional claim under § 1983.

The court noted that HILL did not name O. Aragon in the amended complaint and ordered that all claims against Aragon be dismissed.

Disposition and case management

The order stated that HILL had a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim against BELTRAN and BLACK. It dismissed the property-destruction claim, dismissed the verbal-harassment and threats claim, dismissed all claims against Aragon, and dismissed the retaliation claim against PEREZ with leave to amend. HILL was given 28 days to file a second amended complaint; the order specified that the new complaint would replace the earlier complaints and would have to include all claims he wished to pursue.

The court referred the action, along with other cases filed by HILL, to the Northern District of California’s Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program for global settlement proceedings before Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman. The court ordered service of the operative complaint on BELTRAN and BLACK. After service, further proceedings were stayed and the Clerk was directed to administratively close the case until further order. The order stated that, if the case was not settled, the court would issue a scheduling order for further proceedings.