Hill v. Tyler
This text of Hill v. Tyler (Hill v. Tyler) 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.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 CYMEYON HILL, 4 Case No. 20-cv-03156-YGR (PR) Plaintiff, 5 ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 6 M. B. ATCHLEY, et al., 7 Defendants. 8
9 I. INTRODUCTION 10 Plaintiff, a civil detainee who is currently in custody at Salinas Valley State Prison 11 (“SVSP”), filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court reviewed the 12 complaint and dismissed it with leave to amend to cure pleading deficiencies. Dkt. 11. Plaintiff 13 then filed an amended complaint, in which he names SVSP Wardens M. B. Atchley and Lemon as 14 well as SVSP Mailroom Supervisor Benavades. Dkt. 13. He seeks monetary damages. Id. at 4. 15 His amended complaint is now before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 16 II. BACKGROUND 17 Plaintiff alleges in his amended complaint that on an unknown date in the Fall of 2020, 18 prison officials acted “malicious[ly] and retaliator[ily] by withholding” his “confidential legal mail 19 from the Internal Revenue Service [(‘IRS’)].” Dkt 13 at 1. Plaintiff further alleges that on 20 October 10, 2020, he notified Defendant Atchley about the alleged withholding of his legal mail 21 through the prison’s grievance system and that Defendant Atchley “failed to act or remedy the 22 mail tampering and retaliation.” Id. Plaintiff claims that he later received the mail from the IRS 23 on December 13, 2020. Id. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Benavades as the mailroom 24 supervisor, “is responsible for overseeing all inmate mail.” Id. Plaintiff further claims that 25 Defendants Atchley and Lemon, who are both SVSP Wardens, “implement policy for mail 26 distribution for prisoners and [are] the moving force behind mail policy.” Id. 27 III. DISCUSSION 1 seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 2 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any 3 claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 4 seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at § 1915A(b). 5 Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 6 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two 7 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated 8 and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West 9 v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 10 Inmates enjoy a First Amendment right to send and receive mail. See Thornburgh v. 11 Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407 (1989). However, a prison or jail may adopt regulations or practices 12 that impinge on a prisoner’s First Amendment rights, including rights regarding the mail, if those 13 regulations are “‘reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.’” Id. at 404 (quoting 14 Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987)). Because “freedom from censorship is not equivalent to 15 freedom from inspection or perusal,” prison officials have the right to open and to inspect a 16 prisoner’s incoming and outgoing mail—even legal mail from attorneys to inmates or from 17 inmates to attorneys. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 576 (1974). 18 But the opening and inspecting of legal mail outside the presence of the prisoner may have 19 an impermissible chilling effect on the constitutional right to petition the government. See 20 O’Keefe v. Van Boening, 82 F.3d 322, 325 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 11 21 (1972)). However, “an unconstitutional chill will only exist if the government action has injured 22 the individual or places the individual in immediate danger of sustaining a direct injury.” 23 O’Keefe, 82 F.3d at 325 (citing Laird, 408 U.S. at 13). Moreover, isolated incidents of mail 24 interference without any evidence of improper motive or resulting interference with the right to 25 counsel or access to the courts do not give rise to a constitutional violation. See Smith v. 26 Maschner, 899 F.2d 940, 944 (10th Cir. 1990). 27 Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants withheld one piece of mail from the IRS. Dkt. 13 at 1 Plaintiff’s ability to petition the government. Because Plaintiff has shown no injury as a result of 2 Defendants’ alleged actions, they did not constitute an impermissible chilling effect on his right to 3 meaningful access to the courts. See O’Keefe, 82 F.3d at 325. Furthermore, the withholding of 4 one piece of Plaintiff’s mail from the IRS (which was eventually delivered to him on December 5 13, 2020) without any allegations of improper motive, only amounts to an isolated incident of mail 6 mishandling, which is insufficient to state a claim under section 1983. Smith, 899 F.2d at 944; 7 Bach v. Illinois, 504 F.2d 1100, 1102 (7th Cir.) (isolated incident of mail mishandling insufficient 8 to state a claim under section 1983), cert. denied, 418 U.S. 910 (1974). Therefore, Plaintiff’s 9 claim relating to the withholding of mail against Defendants is DISMISSED. 10 As for Plaintiff’s claim of retaliation, he has made only conclusory allegations, which do 11 not amount to a cognizable claim of retaliation. To state a claim for First Amendment retaliation 12 against a government official, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) he engaged in constitutionally 13 protected activity; (2) as a result, he was subjected to adverse action by the defendant that would 14 chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in the protected activity; and 15 (3) there was a substantial causal relationship between the constitutionally protected activity and 16 the adverse action. Mulligan v. Nichols, 835 F.3d 983, 988 (9th Cir. 2016). Here, Plaintiff states 17 in a conclusory fashion that Defendants’ actions of withholding mail from the IRS were 18 “retaliatory.” See Dkt. 13 at 3. However, Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to support any 19 of the aforementioned elements of retaliation. Plaintiff failed to allege that he engaged in 20 constitutionally-protected conduct, that prison staff took adverse action against him in retaliation 21 for the protected conduct, and that he suffered harm as a result of the retaliation. Therefore, 22 Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations of wrongdoing are insufficient to state a cognizable claim for 23 relief, and his claim of retaliation is DISMISSED. 24 Accordingly, the amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 25 granted. No constitutional violation occurred on the facts alleged in the amended complaint. 26 Further leave to amend will not be granted because it would be futile: the Court already explained 27 the deficiencies in the original complaint and Plaintiff was unwilling or unable to cure them in his IV.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Hill v. Tyler, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-tyler-cand-2021.