Woods v. Hanson

Background

Barry Dewayne Woods, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That law permits a person to sue when someone acting under state authority violates a right protected by the Constitution or federal law. The court had previously dismissed Woods’s original and amended complaints while allowing him to amend. Woods then filed a second amended complaint.

Woods alleged that prison officials retaliated against him for filing inmate appeals. He alleged that D. Hanson threatened him after he filed an appeal, refused to help with problems involving items received from a vendor because of his appeals, later threatened to escalate matters if he continued filing appeals, destroyed personal property, and took an appeal to conceal misconduct. Woods alleged that F. Welch and Utley threatened additional discipline unless he stopped filing appeals. He alleged that R. Bell told him to withdraw his appeals and said his time would go more smoothly if he stopped filing them.

Screening standard

The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires federal courts to review prisoner lawsuits against governmental entities or officials before the case proceeds. The court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, insufficiently pleaded, or seek money from a defendant who is legally immune from that relief. The court also explained that a complaint must provide enough factual allegations to make relief plausible, rather than merely possible or speculative.

For a retaliation claim in prison, the prisoner must allege that a state actor took an adverse action because of protected conduct, that the action chilled the prisoner’s exercise of constitutional rights, and that the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. The court also stated that the protected conduct must be a substantial or motivating factor in the alleged retaliation.

Ruling

The court held that Woods’s allegations of retaliation were sufficient to proceed against Hanson, Welch, Utley, and Bell. The court held that Woods had not presented sufficient allegations against Xiouong to state a claim.

The court ordered that Correctional Officer D. Hanson, Investigative Services Unit Correctional Officer F. Welch, Investigative Services Unit Sergeant Utley, and Chief Deputy Warden R. Bell be served electronically at Pelican Bay State Prison. Xiouong and all other defendants were dismissed with prejudice from the action.

The order directed the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to provide a report about service waivers within 40 days after receiving the order by email. It also directed the defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion no later than 60 days after service, unless a summary-judgment motion could not resolve the case. Woods would have 30 days to respond, and any reply would be due 15 days after the response. The court stated that no hearing would be held unless it later ordered one, and allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Effect of the order

This was a preliminary screening order. It allowed specified retaliation claims to move forward but did not decide whether Woods will prevail on those claims. It ended the claims against Xiouong and the other defendants dismissed from the action with prejudice.