McGhee v. San Mateo County Sheriff's Office Corrections Division

Background

Tijue Adolphus McGhee, an inmate housed at North Kern State Prison, filed this self-represented lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against people acting under state authority for violating federal rights. The court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires early screening of a prisoner’s lawsuit against a government entity or government employee. The court had separately allowed McGhee to proceed without paying the filing fee.

McGhee named the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office Corrections Division and Maguire Correctional Facility officer F. Radetic as defendants. He alleged that he was retaliated against for filing a December 18, 2022 grievance challenging San Mateo County’s mail policy. According to the complaint, physical mail for San Mateo County inmates was sent to a company in Florida for scanning, delivered electronically, and then destroyed in paper form.

McGhee alleged two retaliatory acts. First, he said that on February 12, 2023, his application to proceed without paying the filing fee in another federal case went missing after he gave it to Radetic for delivery to cashier Jason Bugle. Second, he said that on May 11, 2023, he sent an application to proceed without paying the filing fee in a Ninth Circuit appeal to the Service League for photocopying, but never received the original or the copies.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the complaint did not adequately state a First Amendment retaliation claim. Such a claim requires allegations that a state actor took adverse action because of protected conduct, that the action chilled the prisoner’s exercise of First Amendment rights, and that the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. The prisoner must also plausibly allege that the protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the alleged retaliation.

The court found it unclear whether Radetic knew about McGhee’s December 18 grievance or why McGhee believed Radetic was motivated by it. The court also found it unclear why McGhee believed Radetic had destroyed the application. The allegation that the application went missing after McGhee handed it to Radetic was insufficient by itself.

As to the appellate application and its copies, the court found that McGhee had not explained why he believed correctional officials knew about his protected conduct or destroyed the documents. The court again ruled that the documents’ disappearance, without more, was insufficient. The court also said McGhee needed to identify the correctional officials responsible for the alleged destruction and could not sue all employees of the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office Corrections Division merely because he did not yet know which officers were responsible.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend and granted McGhee permission to file an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies. The amended complaint was due within 28 days of the order. It had to use the caption and case number specified by the court, include the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page, state all claims and defendants McGhee wished to pursue, and not incorporate the earlier complaint by reference. The court warned that failure to file a compliant amended complaint would result in dismissal of the action without further notice.

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order.