Hill v. Weaver
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:21-cv-03640
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Hill v. Weaver, Judge Rogers dismissed Hill’s amended civil-rights lawsuit for failing to state a claim after he did not add required supporting facts.
Cymeyon V. Hill’s amended civil-rights action was dismissed, and the case file was closed. Jenffer Weaver was the only named defendant.
What happened
Cymeyon V. Hill sued Jenffer Weaver in a civil-rights case, alleging that Weaver unlawfully transferred him to the California prison system using false medical documents and treated him harshly because of racial prejudice. Hill filed the case without a lawyer and sought money damages.
The court had previously dismissed Hill’s original complaint but allowed him to amend it. In the amended complaint, Hill did not provide specific facts showing that Weaver knew about a safety risk, deliberately ignored his health or safety needs, or acted with an intent to punish him. The court also noted that Hill no longer tried to pursue his earlier retaliation claim.
The court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim and directed the clerk to close the file. Judge Yvonne Rogers ruled that Hill would not receive another opportunity to amend because he had not corrected the problems identified in the earlier order.
The detailed version
- Hill v. Weaver · No. 4:21-cv-03640
- Yvonne Rogers
- May 10, 2022
Background
Cymeyon V. Hill, a civil detainee in custody at California State Prison - Sacramento, filed a civil-rights complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint concerned allegations that Jenffer Weaver unlawfully transferred Hill to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in 2004 from Patton State Hospital, based on false medical documents. After the court dismissed the original complaint with permission to amend, Hill filed an amended complaint naming only Weaver and requesting monetary relief.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court screened the amended complaint to determine whether it stated a legally viable claim. Hill alleged that Weaver was deliberately indifferent, racist, and prejudiced; subjected him to harsh conditions of confinement; intended to punish him; and endangered his safety because of racial prejudice.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that the amended complaint still did not state a claim against a viable defendant. First, it lacked factual allegations showing that Weaver knew about safety concerns connected to the decision to authorize Hill’s transfer. The court said Weaver’s alleged conduct appeared, at most, to amount to negligence, which is not actionable under the legal standard the court applied.
The court also found that Hill’s allegations about false medical documents and Weaver’s alleged malicious intent were conclusory, meaning they asserted conclusions without specific supporting facts. Hill did not explain how Weaver was deliberately indifferent to his health and safety needs or how Weaver actually caused the deprivation of his federal rights. The court had previously instructed Hill that negligence or gross negligence was insufficient and that he needed to connect each defendant to specific facts showing deliberate indifference.
The court separately noted that Hill’s original complaint had alleged retaliation for filing grievances, but the amended complaint no longer attempted to bring a retaliation claim.
Disposition
The court DISMISSED the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. It directed the clerk to close the file and denied further leave to amend because Hill had not corrected the deficiencies identified in the earlier order. Judge Yvonne Rogers signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.