Youngs v. Orange County Sherrifs Organization

Background

Robert M. Youngs, proceeding without a lawyer, sued correctional officers over events at the Orange County Correctional Facility. The opinion addresses three claims: (1) a procedural due-process claim against Sergeant Gessner based on the alleged denial of witnesses at a December 2021 disciplinary hearing; (2) a retaliation claim against Officer Laudato based on an allegedly false misbehavior report after Youngs requested a grievance form; and (3) retaliation claims against Sergeants Della Pia and Mann based on recommendations that Youngs remain in cell confinement after he requested grievance forms.

The court’s earlier case-management orders had terminated Orange County as a defendant. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether the complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim.

Due-Process Claim

The court dismissed Youngs’s due-process claim against Gessner. A procedural due-process claim requires a plaintiff to show both a protected interest in life, liberty, or property and constitutionally adequate procedures.

The court held that the amended complaint did not describe the outcome of the disciplinary hearing or the discipline imposed. Without those facts, the court could not determine whether Youngs experienced an unusually severe hardship that would create a protected liberty interest. The court also held that Youngs’s statement that he had “two pages of witnesses” but was denied the ability to call them was conclusory. He did not provide facts showing why the witnesses were needed or how he was denied a reasonable opportunity to call them. The court therefore dismissed the due-process claim for failure to state a claim.

Retaliation Claims

The court also dismissed the retaliation claims. A prisoner asserting retaliation must plausibly allege protected activity, an adverse action, and a causal connection between the two. The court recognized that requesting a grievance form may constitute protected activity, but found that Youngs had not adequately alleged a causal connection.

As to Laudato, the court found that the request for a grievance form and the allegedly false disciplinary report arose from the same microwave and clothing incident and occurred essentially at the same time. The court concluded that the allegations more naturally suggested that the report concerned the incident itself, rather than retaliation for requesting a grievance. Youngs did not provide additional circumstantial facts, such as a disciplinary record, statements by Laudato, or other evidence of retaliatory intent. The court also noted that Youngs appealed the disciplinary decision rather than being vindicated at the hearing.

As to Della Pia and Mann, the court found no specific facts connecting their confinement recommendations to Youngs’s grievance requests. The complaint did not allege that Youngs requested forms from those officers or sought to file grievances about incidents involving them. The court found that the officers’ references to Youngs’s repeated grievance requests, without more, did not plausibly show retaliation.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court considered whether Youngs should receive another opportunity to amend. It noted that he had already amended his complaint after receiving instructions about the missing facts, but it nevertheless granted him one more opportunity because he was representing himself.

The conclusion states that the court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint in its entirety, dismisses Youngs’s claims without prejudice, and grants leave to file a second amended complaint by July 8, 2024. It states that the second amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the amended complaint. If Youngs filed it by the deadline, the defendants were directed to answer or otherwise respond by July 29, 2024. The opinion earlier states that the claims were dismissed “with prejudice,” but that statement conflicts with the conclusion’s express dismissal without prejudice and grant of leave to amend.