Avila v. Tenzie

Background

Lexy Avila filed a complaint against Stacy Tenzie and later filed an amended complaint. Avila represented herself. The court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Gorenstein for pretrial management and recommendations on motions that could dispose of the case. Tenzie moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a claim for relief.

Avila did not oppose the motion despite repeated deadline extensions. Judge Gorenstein recommended granting the motion and informed the parties that they had 14 days to file objections. Neither party objected. Because there were no objections, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error—an obvious mistake apparent from the record.

Claims and analysis

The court treated Avila’s allegations that Tenzie verbally harassed and threatened her because she is transgender as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The court also applied the more forgiving standard used for people representing themselves, construing their filings to raise the strongest arguments reasonably suggested by the allegations.

The court agreed that the alleged verbal harassment was not sufficiently serious to violate either the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment or the Fourteenth Amendment standard applicable to pretrial detainees. Avila did not specify whether she was a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner, so the court considered both standards. The court also agreed that Avila failed to state a failure-to-protect claim because she did not allege facts showing that Tenzie’s conduct created a substantial risk of serious harm.

The court rejected Avila’s equal-protection theory because she did not allege that Tenzie treated similarly situated people differently because Avila is transgender. It also concluded that verbal harassment, without more, did not violate equal protection.

The court separately considered Avila’s claim that Tenzie retaliated against her for filing the lawsuit. Avila alleged that Tenzie told another inmate that she knew people “in the street with guns” who would “handle” Avila. The court concluded that the statement was not communicated directly to Avila and did not specify who would cause harm, what the harm would be, or when it would occur. It therefore agreed that the statement did not qualify as the adverse action required for a First Amendment retaliation claim.

Disposition

Judge Caproni adopted Judge Gorenstein’s report and recommendation in full, granted Tenzie’s motion to dismiss, and dismissed the case. The order does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The court also stated that Avila’s failure to object precluded appellate review, certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal, terminated the open motions, and directed the Clerk to close the case.