Hill v. Weaver

Background

Cymeyon V. Hill filed a pro se civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had previously dismissed the action without prejudice after Hill did not pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed without paying it. After Hill later submitted the required application, the court ordered the action reopened. The court stated that the application would be granted in a separate written order.

Hill named Correctional Counselor II Jeneffer Weaver, Clinician Psychologist Kimberly Siebiel, Warden T. Lemon, and Kathleen Allison, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Hill sought injunctive relief and monetary damages, and also requested immediate release. He alleged that the defendants transferred him to the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation based on false charges, denied him a chance of release, placed him in harsh confinement conditions, and retaliated against him for filing grievances and lawsuits.

Screening and Claims

Because Hill sought relief from government officials, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At this stage, the court had to identify claims that were legally sufficient and dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a claim, or sought relief from an immune defendant. The court also applied the rule that a complaint must provide enough factual allegations to make a claim plausible, rather than relying on labels or conclusions.

Injunctive Relief

The court dismissed Hill’s claim for injunctive relief because his transfer from SVSP to CSP-Sacramento meant that he was no longer housed at the facility where the alleged conditions occurred. The court concluded that there was no sufficient basis to expect that Hill would again be subjected to those conditions, making the request for injunctive relief moot.

Transfer and Safety Allegations

The court explained that prisoners generally have no constitutional right to incarceration at a particular institution, and that a transfer ordinarily does not violate due process or equal-protection rights. The court found it unclear what Hill meant by alleging that he was “illegally transferred to [the] CDCR.” To the extent Hill challenged only his transfer to SVSP under prison regulations, the court concluded that the allegation did not state a cognizable § 1983 claim.

The court considered whether Hill might instead be alleging that the defendants authorized the transfer despite knowing that it threatened his safety. To state an Eighth Amendment safety claim, Hill had to allege an objectively serious deprivation and that each official knew of and deliberately disregarded an excessive risk to his health or safety. The court found that Hill had not provided facts showing that the named defendants knew of safety concerns. It stated that the allegations appeared, at most, to describe negligence, which is not enough for an Eighth Amendment claim. The court therefore dismissed the Eighth Amendment claim with leave to amend and instructed Hill to provide specific facts linking each defendant to the alleged deliberate indifference and resulting injury.

Retaliation Allegations

The court explained that retaliation by a state official for exercising a constitutional right can support a § 1983 claim. A prisoner must allege protected activity, adverse action that would discourage a person of ordinary firmness from exercising that right, a connection between the activity and the adverse action, and the absence of a legitimate correctional reason for the action.

The court found that Hill had not stated a cognizable retaliation claim because he did not allege facts showing that the transfer or other actions were taken because of his protected conduct. His allegations that the transfer was retaliatory and that the defendants punished him for filing lawsuits were conclusory and speculative. He provided no dates for the transfer or the lawsuits, and did not describe when or how the allegedly harsh confinement occurred. The court dismissed the retaliation claim, while allowing Hill to amend if he could in good faith allege facts supporting it.

Disposition

The court ordered the clerk to reopen the case file and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. The amended complaint had to state each claim separately, identify what each defendant did or failed to do, identify the resulting injury, and avoid grouping the defendants together without explaining each person’s involvement. Hill had 28 days from the order to file the amended complaint using the required form. The court stated that failure to file a timely amended complaint or correct the identified deficiencies would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers also reminded Hill that a supervisor cannot be held liable under § 1983 solely because of supervisory status; liability requires personal involvement or a sufficient causal connection to the alleged constitutional violation.