1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 CYMEYON V. HILL, 7 Case No. 24-cv-03519-YGR (PR) Plaintiff, 8 ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL; v. SERVING COGNIZABLE CLAIM; 9 REFERRING CASE TO PRO SE MEDICAL STAFF SANTIAGOS, et al., PRISONER MEDIATION PROGRAM 10 FOR GLOBAL SETTLEMENT Defendants. PROCEEDINGS; STAYING ACTION; 11 AND DIRECTIONS TO CLERK
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 four members of the medical staff at NSH: Medical Staff 19 Santiagos, Tom, Monique and Jennie Clay. Dkt. 1 at 2.1 Plaintiff seeks punitive and nominal 20 damages. Id. at 3. 21 II. DISCUSSION 22 A. Standard of Review 23 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 24 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 26 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 27 1 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se 2 pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th 3 Cir. 1988). 4 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 5 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that 6 the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. 7 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 8 B. Legal Claims 9 Plaintiff, who was civilly committed in 1997 following a plea of not guilty by reason of 10 insanity, alleges the following took place on May 10, 2024. Dkt. 1 at 3. Defendant Santiagos told 11 plaintiff while he was in “Unit T8” that he was a “fucking nigger and that he would be punished 12 for filing lawsuits and grievances.” Id. Defendant Santiagos also told plaintiff that defendants 13 Monique and Clay told defendant Santiagos “that plaintiff would suffer [i]n Unit T8.” Id. 14 To state a claim for First Amendment retaliation against a government official, a plaintiff 15 must demonstrate that (1) he engaged in constitutionally protected activity; (2) as a result, he was 16 subjected to adverse action by the defendant that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from 17 continuing to engage in the protected activity; and (3) there was a substantial causal relationship 18 between the constitutionally protected activity and the adverse action. Mulligan v. Nichols, 835 19 F.3d 983, 988 (9th Cir. 2016). Plaintiff has stated a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim 20 against defendants Santiagos, Monique, and Clay. 21 To the extent that plaintiff’s complaint states a claim against defendants Santiagos, 22 Monique, and Clay of verbal harassment and threats, such a claim is DISMISSED. See Freeman 23 v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 738 (9th Cir. 1997) (Allegations of verbal harassment and abuse fail to 24 state a claim cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.); see also Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th 25 Cir. 1987) (mere threat does not constitute constitutional wrong, nor do allegations that naked 26 threat was for purpose of denying access to courts compel contrary result). 27 III. PRO SE PRISONER MEDIATION PROGRAM 1 Certain prisoner civil rights cases may be referred to a neutral magistrate judge for settlement 2 proceedings. The proceedings will consist of one or more conferences as determined by 3 Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman. The conferences shall be conducted with Plaintiff as well as 4 Defendants and/or the representative for Defendants attending by videoconferencing. 5 Good cause appearing, the present case will be REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Robert 6 Illman for global settlement proceedings pursuant to the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program, 7 involving the instant matter and other cases filed by plaintiff. Such proceedings shall take place 8 within 120 days of the date this Order is filed, or as soon thereafter as Magistrate Judge Illman’s 9 calendar will permit. Magistrate Judge Illman shall coordinate a place, time, and date for one or 10 more settlement conferences with all interested parties and/or their representatives and, within 11 fifteen days of the conclusion of all settlement proceedings, shall file with the Court a report 12 thereon. 13 IV. CONCLUSION 14 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 15 1. Plaintiff has stated a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim against 16 defendants Santiagos, Monique, and Clay. 17 2. Plaintiff’s claim against defendants Santiagos, Monique, and Clay of verbal 18 harassment and threats is DISMISSED. 19 3. Plaintiff’s action is referred to the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program for global 20 settlement proceedings, involving the instant matter and other cases filed by plaintiff. The Clerk is 21 directed to serve Magistrate Judge Illman with a copy of this order and to notify Magistrate Judge 22 Illman that a copy of the court file can be retrieved from the Court’s electronic filing database. 23 4. The Clerk of the Court shall mail a Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of 24 Service of Summons, two copies of the Waiver of Service of Summons, a copy of the complaint 25 and all attachments thereto (dkt. 1), and a copy of this Order to the following defendants: Medical 26 Staff Santiagos, Tom, Monique and Jennie Clay at Napa State Hospital, ATTN: Litigation 27 Coordinator, 2100 Napa Vallejo Hwy, Napa, CA 94558. The Clerk also shall mail a copy of 1 Additionally, the Clerk shall mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff. 2 5. Defendants are cautioned that Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 3 requires them to cooperate in saving unnecessary costs of service of the summons and complaint. 4 Pursuant to Rule 4, if defendants, after being notified of this action and asked by the Court, on 5 behalf of plaintiff, to waive service of the summons, fail to do so, defendants will be required to 6 bear the cost of such service unless good cause be shown for the failure to sign and return the 7 waiver form. If service is waived, this action will proceed as if defendants had been served on the 8 date that the waiver is filed, except that pursuant to Rule 12(a)(1)(B), defendants will not be 9 required to serve and file an answer before sixty (60) days from the date on which the request for 10 waiver was sent.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 CYMEYON V. HILL, 7 Case No. 24-cv-03519-YGR (PR) Plaintiff, 8 ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL; v. SERVING COGNIZABLE CLAIM; 9 REFERRING CASE TO PRO SE MEDICAL STAFF SANTIAGOS, et al., PRISONER MEDIATION PROGRAM 10 FOR GLOBAL SETTLEMENT Defendants. PROCEEDINGS; STAYING ACTION; 11 AND DIRECTIONS TO CLERK
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 four members of the medical staff at NSH: Medical Staff 19 Santiagos, Tom, Monique and Jennie Clay. Dkt. 1 at 2.1 Plaintiff seeks punitive and nominal 20 damages. Id. at 3. 21 II. DISCUSSION 22 A. Standard of Review 23 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 24 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 26 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 27 1 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se 2 pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th 3 Cir. 1988). 4 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 5 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that 6 the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. 7 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 8 B. Legal Claims 9 Plaintiff, who was civilly committed in 1997 following a plea of not guilty by reason of 10 insanity, alleges the following took place on May 10, 2024. Dkt. 1 at 3. Defendant Santiagos told 11 plaintiff while he was in “Unit T8” that he was a “fucking nigger and that he would be punished 12 for filing lawsuits and grievances.” Id. Defendant Santiagos also told plaintiff that defendants 13 Monique and Clay told defendant Santiagos “that plaintiff would suffer [i]n Unit T8.” Id. 14 To state a claim for First Amendment retaliation against a government official, a plaintiff 15 must demonstrate that (1) he engaged in constitutionally protected activity; (2) as a result, he was 16 subjected to adverse action by the defendant that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from 17 continuing to engage in the protected activity; and (3) there was a substantial causal relationship 18 between the constitutionally protected activity and the adverse action. Mulligan v. Nichols, 835 19 F.3d 983, 988 (9th Cir. 2016). Plaintiff has stated a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim 20 against defendants Santiagos, Monique, and Clay. 21 To the extent that plaintiff’s complaint states a claim against defendants Santiagos, 22 Monique, and Clay of verbal harassment and threats, such a claim is DISMISSED. See Freeman 23 v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 738 (9th Cir. 1997) (Allegations of verbal harassment and abuse fail to 24 state a claim cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.); see also Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th 25 Cir. 1987) (mere threat does not constitute constitutional wrong, nor do allegations that naked 26 threat was for purpose of denying access to courts compel contrary result). 27 III. PRO SE PRISONER MEDIATION PROGRAM 1 Certain prisoner civil rights cases may be referred to a neutral magistrate judge for settlement 2 proceedings. The proceedings will consist of one or more conferences as determined by 3 Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman. The conferences shall be conducted with Plaintiff as well as 4 Defendants and/or the representative for Defendants attending by videoconferencing. 5 Good cause appearing, the present case will be REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Robert 6 Illman for global settlement proceedings pursuant to the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program, 7 involving the instant matter and other cases filed by plaintiff. Such proceedings shall take place 8 within 120 days of the date this Order is filed, or as soon thereafter as Magistrate Judge Illman’s 9 calendar will permit. Magistrate Judge Illman shall coordinate a place, time, and date for one or 10 more settlement conferences with all interested parties and/or their representatives and, within 11 fifteen days of the conclusion of all settlement proceedings, shall file with the Court a report 12 thereon. 13 IV. CONCLUSION 14 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 15 1. Plaintiff has stated a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim against 16 defendants Santiagos, Monique, and Clay. 17 2. Plaintiff’s claim against defendants Santiagos, Monique, and Clay of verbal 18 harassment and threats is DISMISSED. 19 3. Plaintiff’s action is referred to the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program for global 20 settlement proceedings, involving the instant matter and other cases filed by plaintiff. The Clerk is 21 directed to serve Magistrate Judge Illman with a copy of this order and to notify Magistrate Judge 22 Illman that a copy of the court file can be retrieved from the Court’s electronic filing database. 23 4. The Clerk of the Court shall mail a Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of 24 Service of Summons, two copies of the Waiver of Service of Summons, a copy of the complaint 25 and all attachments thereto (dkt. 1), and a copy of this Order to the following defendants: Medical 26 Staff Santiagos, Tom, Monique and Jennie Clay at Napa State Hospital, ATTN: Litigation 27 Coordinator, 2100 Napa Vallejo Hwy, Napa, CA 94558. The Clerk also shall mail a copy of 1 Additionally, the Clerk shall mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff. 2 5. Defendants are cautioned that Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 3 requires them to cooperate in saving unnecessary costs of service of the summons and complaint. 4 Pursuant to Rule 4, if defendants, after being notified of this action and asked by the Court, on 5 behalf of plaintiff, to waive service of the summons, fail to do so, defendants will be required to 6 bear the cost of such service unless good cause be shown for the failure to sign and return the 7 waiver form. If service is waived, this action will proceed as if defendants had been served on the 8 date that the waiver is filed, except that pursuant to Rule 12(a)(1)(B), defendants will not be 9 required to serve and file an answer before sixty (60) days from the date on which the request for 10 waiver was sent. (This allows a longer time to respond than would be required if formal service of 11 summons is necessary.) Defendants are asked to read the statement set forth at the foot of the 12 waiver form that more completely describes the duties of the parties with regard to waiver of 13 service of the summons. If service is waived after the date provided in the Notice but before 14 defendants personally have been served, the Answer shall be due sixty (60) days from the date on 15 which the request for waiver was sent or twenty (20) days from the date the waiver form is filed, 16 whichever is later. 17 6. All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must be served on Defendants or 18 Defendants’ counsel, once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to 19 them. 20 7. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court 21 informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. 22 Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 3-11, a party proceeding pro se whose address changes 23 while an action is pending must promptly file a notice of change of address specifying the new 24 address. See L.R. 3-11(a). The Court may dismiss without prejudice a complaint when: (1) mail 25 directed to the pro se party by the Court has been returned to the Court as not deliverable, and 26 (2) the Court fails to receive within sixty days of this return a written communication from the pro 27 se party indicating a current address. See L.R. 3-11(b). 1 granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend. 2 9. In view of the referral to the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program, after the operative 3 |} complaint has been served on the aforementioned named defendants against whom plaintiff has 4 alleged cognizable claim(s), all other further proceedings in this case are hereby STAYED. If the 5 case is not settled, the Court will enter a scheduling order for further proceedings. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 || Dated: January 7, 2025 8 Y NE GONZALEZ ROGERS 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12
© 15 16
= 17
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28