Wilkins v. Baker
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:23-cv-01387
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Wilkins v. Baker, Judge Gilliam dismissed a prisoner’s retaliation claim with leave to amend because the complaint lacked supporting facts.
Timothy D. Wilkins, whose complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, and B. Baker, who was named as the defendant.
What happened
In Wilkins v. Baker, Timothy D. Wilkins, an incarcerated person representing himself, sued B. Baker under a federal civil-rights law. The court reviewed his complaint under the screening law for prisoner cases.
Wilkins alleged that he filed a grievance about his housing placement and that Baker retaliated by issuing him a rules-violation report. The court found that this was only a conclusory statement and did not include enough facts to support a First Amendment retaliation claim.
Judge Gilliam dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Wilkins was given 28 days to file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies; the court stated that failing to do so would result in dismissal of the action without further notice.
The detailed version
- Wilkins v. Baker · No. 4:23-cv-01387
- Haywood Gilliam
- July 7, 2023
Background
Timothy D. Wilkins, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. He was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee in a separate order. The complaint named B. Baker, identified as a correctional sergeant at San Quentin State Prison.
Wilkins alleged that he filed Grievance No. 306199 on September 16, 2022, regarding his housing placement. He further alleged that on October 3, 2022, Baker retaliated against him for filing the grievance by issuing him a rules-violation report. Wilkins characterized this as retaliation for conduct protected by the First Amendment.
Court’s analysis
Because Wilkins was an inmate seeking relief from a governmental officer, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That law requires the court to identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires a short and plain statement showing why the plaintiff is entitled to relief.
The court explained that a claim under § 1983 requires allegations showing both a violation of a federal right and conduct by a person acting under state authority. It concluded that the complaint offered only a conclusory assertion that Baker retaliated against Wilkins. The complaint did not provide enough factual enhancement to state a claim for First Amendment retaliation.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. It ordered Wilkins to file an amended complaint within 28 days that addressed the identified deficiencies. The amended complaint had to use the required caption and case number and state all claims and defendants Wilkins wished to pursue. The court stated that failure to file a compliant amended complaint within the specified time would result in dismissal of the action without further notice. The order was signed by Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., United States District Judge.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.