Hill v. PT Abie

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California
DecidedOctober 9, 2024
Docket4:24-cv-02545
StatusUnknown

This text of Hill v. PT Abie (Hill v. PT Abie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hill v. PT Abie, (N.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 CYMEYON HILL, 7 Case No. 24-cv-02545-YGR (PR) Plaintiff, 8 ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL AND v. SERVICE 9 PT ABIE, et al., 10 Defendants. 11

12 I. INTRODUCTION 13 Plaintiff, a civil detainee currently being held in custody at Napa State Hospital (“NSH”), 14 filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Venue is proper because the 15 events giving rise to the claim is alleged to have occurred in NSH, which is located in this judicial 16 district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will 17 be granted in a separate order. 18 Plaintiff has named as Defendants two members of the medical staff at NSH: “PT Abie” 19 and Jennie Clay. Dkt. 1 at 2.1 Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages. Id. at 3. 20 II. DISCUSSION 21 A. Standard of Review 22 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 23 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 25 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 26 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se 27 1 pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th 2 Cir. 1988). 3 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 4 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that 5 the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. 6 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 7 B. Legal Claims 8 Plaintiff, who was civilly committed in 1997 following a plea of not guilty by reason of 9 insanity, alleges the following took place on April 14, 2024. Dkt. 1 at 3. He claims that while he 10 was in “Facility F8,” defendant Abie told plaintiff that “he would be punished for filing lawsuits 11 and complaints against the medical staff.” Id. Defendant Abie also told plaintiff that defendant 12 Clay “told her to punish plaintiff every time he filed a lawsuit.” Id. 13 To state a claim for First Amendment retaliation against a government official, a plaintiff 14 must demonstrate that (1) he engaged in constitutionally protected activity; (2) as a result, he was 15 subjected to adverse action by the defendant that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from 16 continuing to engage in the protected activity; and (3) there was a substantial causal relationship 17 between the constitutionally protected activity and the adverse action. Mulligan v. Nichols, 835 18 F.3d 983, 988 (9th Cir. 2016). Plaintiff has stated a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim 19 against defendants Abie and Clay. 20 To the extent that plaintiff’s complaint states a claim against defendants Abie and Clay of 21 verbal harassment and threats, such a claim is DISMISSED. See Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 22 732, 738 (9th Cir. 1997) (Allegations of verbal harassment and abuse fail to state a claim 23 cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.); see also Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 1987) 24 (mere threat does not constitute constitutional wrong, nor do allegations that naked threat was for 25 purpose of denying access to courts compel contrary result). 26 III. CONCLUSION 27 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 1 defendants Abie and Clay. 2 2. Plaintiff’s claim against defendants Abie and Clay of verbal harassment and threats 3 is DISMISSED. 4 3. The Clerk of the Court shall mail a Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of 5 Service of Summons, two copies of the Waiver of Service of Summons, a copy of the complaint 6 and all attachments thereto (dkt. 1), and a copy of this Order to the following defendants: “PT 7 Abie” and Jennie Clay at Napa State Hospital, ATTN: Litigation Coordinator, 2100 Napa 8 Vallejo Hwy, Napa, CA 94558. The Clerk also shall mail a copy of the complaint and a copy of 9 this Order to the State Attorney General’s Office in San Francisco. Additionally, the Clerk shall 10 mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff. 11 4. Defendants are cautioned that Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 requires them to cooperate in saving unnecessary costs of service of the summons and complaint. 13 Pursuant to Rule 4, if defendants, after being notified of this action and asked by the Court, on 14 behalf of plaintiff, to waive service of the summons, fail to do so, defendants will be required to 15 bear the cost of such service unless good cause be shown for the failure to sign and return the 16 waiver form. If service is waived, this action will proceed as if defendants had been served on the 17 date that the waiver is filed, except that pursuant to Rule 12(a)(1)(B), defendants will not be 18 required to serve and file an answer before sixty (60) days from the date on which the request for 19 waiver was sent. (This allows a longer time to respond than would be required if formal service of 20 summons is necessary.) Defendants are asked to read the statement set forth at the foot of the 21 waiver form that more completely describes the duties of the parties with regard to waiver of 22 service of the summons. If service is waived after the date provided in the Notice but before 23 defendants personally have been served, the Answer shall be due sixty (60) days from the date on 24 which the request for waiver was sent or twenty (20) days from the date the waiver form is filed, 25 whichever is later. 26 5. Defendants shall answer the complaint in accordance with the Federal Rules of 27 Civil Procedure. The following briefing schedule shall govern dispositive motions in this action: 1 shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. The motion must be 2 supported by adequate factual documentation, must conform in all respects to Federal Rule of 3 Civil Procedure 56, and must include as exhibits all records and incident reports stemming from 4 the events at issue. A motion for summary judgment also must be accompanied by a Rand2 notice 5 so that plaintiff will have fair, timely and adequate notice of what is required of him in order to 6 oppose the motion. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 935 (9th Cir. 2012) (notice requirement set out 7 in Rand must be served concurrently with motion for summary judgment). A motion to dismiss 8 for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies must be accompanied by a similar notice.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

West v. Atkins
487 U.S. 42 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Poulin v. Greer
18 F.3d 979 (First Circuit, 1994)
Earnest Woods, II v. Tom Carey
684 F.3d 934 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Juan Albino v. Lee Baca
747 F.3d 1162 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)
Wyatt v. Terhune
315 F.3d 1108 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hill v. PT Abie, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-pt-abie-cand-2024.