Unique v. Claybaugh

Background

Tarryn Unique and Miguel White, incarcerated plaintiffs representing themselves, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Joseph Claybaugh and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). They alleged that Claybaugh, identified as a staff psychologist at Salinas Valley State Prison, sexually assaulted them and forced them to sell contraband for about one year. They also alleged that, after reporting the misconduct, they faced threats and retaliation from prison staff and were transferred to different institutions, making it harder for them to pursue the case.

The plaintiffs sought damages and injunctive relief, including placement at the same institution and removal of disciplinary actions from their records. Their requests to proceed without paying the filing fee were addressed in a separate order.

Screening of the Claims

Because the plaintiffs were prisoners seeking relief from government defendants, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court explained that a § 1983 claim requires an alleged violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by a person acting under state law.

The court held that the plaintiffs stated cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against Claybaugh for sexual assault and/or sexual harassment. The court explained that sexual assault by prison staff can violate the Eighth Amendment and that a prisoner need not prove a resulting physical injury to pursue such a claim.

The court concluded that the complaint did not presently state a claim against CDCR under the rule governing government liability for an official policy or custom. The plaintiffs alleged that CDCR staff supported retaliation and failed to investigate staff misconduct, but they did not identify a specific CDCR policy tied to the alleged constitutional violations. The court stated that the complaint could be amended to address this deficiency.

The court also concluded that the complaint did not presently state a First Amendment retaliation claim against any defendant. The plaintiffs alleged that unnamed staff members retaliated against them for filing grievances, but the court stated that the complaint could potentially be amended to state such a claim.

Counsel, Service, and Case Management

Based on the seriousness of the allegations and the possibility that counsel could help amend the claims against CDCR and other defendants, the court found exceptional circumstances supporting appointment of counsel. It referred the matter to the Federal Pro Se Program to locate counsel. If an attorney is located, that attorney is to be appointed as counsel until further order of the court.

The court ordered service of the operative complaint on Dr. Joseph Claybaugh through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's electronic service process for prisoner civil-rights cases. It required the parties to provide copies of their communications to the opposing side or opposing counsel. Except for service on Claybaugh, the court stayed the proceedings until counsel is located. After counsel is appointed, the court will set a deadline for amendment and issue further orders as needed.

Disposition

This was a screening and case-management order rather than a final decision on the claims. The court found the Eighth Amendment claims against Claybaugh sufficient to proceed, found the claims against CDCR and the retaliation claim insufficient as currently pleaded but potentially amendable, referred the plaintiffs for counsel, ordered service on Claybaugh, and stayed the remaining proceedings.