Martinez v. Madden et al
Filing
23
ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part 8 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint. Defendants Gervin and Madden Ordered to file an Answer. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 9/16/2013. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(srm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
RONALD F. MARTINEZ,
CDCR #T-86494,
Civil No.
12cv1298 GPC (MDD)
Plaintiff,
13
14
vs.
15
16
R. MADDEN; I. CALDERON; A.B. GERVIN;
O. MARTINEZ; O.K. RATLIFF; DOES 1-5,
17
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT PURSUANT
TO FED.R.CIV .P. 12(b)(6)
(ECF Doc. No. 8)
18
19
In this case, Ronald F. Martinez (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner currently incarcerated at Salinas
20
Valley State Prison (“SVSP”), is proceeding in pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 28
21
U.S.C. § 1915(a) and the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
22
In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges Centinela State Prison (“CEN”) officials
23
Madden, Gervin, Calderon, Martinez, and Ratliff (“Defendants”),1 violated his constitutional
24
25
26
27
28
1
While Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint also includes as defendants “Does 1-5,” alleged to be
officials employed at CEN in “positions unknown” whom he claims also retaliated against him, see
Amend. Compl. (ECF Doc. No. 5) at 3, Plaintiff has never identified these potential parties, amended
his pleading to name them, and has not served them with any pleading or summons. See Walker v.
Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1421-22 (9th Cir.1994) (where a pro se plaintiff fails to provide the Marshal with
accurate and sufficient information to identify defendants and effect service of the summons and
complaint within 120 days, the court’s sua sponte dismissal of those unserved defendants is appropriate);
FED.R.CIV.P. 4(m).
I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\GPC\12cv1298-MTD-FAC.wpd
-1-
11cv1298 GPC (MDD)
1
rights in August and November 2011, while he was incarcerated there, by retaliating against him
2
for filing an inmate grievance (“CDC 602”) against Gervin. See Amend. Compl. (ECF Doc.
3
No. 5) at 1-13. Plaintiff seeks to have Defendants fired, injunctive relief preventing them from
4
taking further reprisals against him,2 and both general and punitive damages, including $25,000
5
for “emotional distress.” Id. at 19.
6
Currently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P.
7
12(b)(6) (ECF Doc. No. 8). After he was granted an extension of time, Plaintiff filed an
8
Opposition (ECF Doc. No. 21). Defendants have no Reply. The Court has found the matter
9
suitable for submission on the papers, and has held no oral argument. See S.D. CAL. CIVLR
10
7.1(d)(1).
11
I.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
12
Plaintiff alleges that on August 7, 2011, he submitted a CDC Form 602 Inmate Appeal
13
(Log No. CEN-C-11-00779) challenging changes made by CEN’s Warden D. Uribe to the “‘C’
14
yard’s level IV daily activity schedule.” Plaintiff’s CDC 602 alleged that the change in the
15
schedule violated both due process and equal protection because it limited “A1A unassigned”
16
inmates like him from accessing the recreational yard on weekends and holidays. (Amend.
17
Compl. at 4.)
18
On August 25, 2011, Defendant Lt. Gervin conducted a second level review hearing of
19
Plaintiff’s CDC Form 602 Inmate Appeal, Log. No. CEN-C-11-00779. Plaintiff claims that
20
when he entered Gervin’s office, Gervin “started yelling” and “threatening” him. (Id.)
21
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges Gervin asked him, “[W]ho did [he] think he was?” told him he
22
“d[id] not know anything about due process and equal protection,” upbraided him for “cit[ing]
23
the incorrect CAL. CODE REGS., tit. 15 sections,” indicated that the Warden “can do whatever he
24
wants,” and warned Plaintiff that “if [he] wanted a job (in order to be[come] ... ‘A1A’
25
26
27
28
2
Because Plaintiff has been transferred from CEN to SVSP since his cause of action accrued
there in 2011 and 2012, his claims for injunctive relief against Defendants, all alleged to be correctional
officials at CEN, are moot. See Preiser v. Newkirk. 422 U.S. 395, 402-03 (1975) (where prisoner
challenges conditions of confinement and seeks injunctive relief, a transfer to another prison renders his
request for injunctive relief moot absent evidence of an expectation that he will be transferred back to
offending institution); accord Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.3d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam).
I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\GPC\12cv1298-MTD-FAC.wpd
-2-
11cv1298 GPC (MDD)
1
assigned),” and to receive “weekend and holiday yard[]” privileges, he “was not going to like
2
it.” (Id.) Plaintiff, “frustrated with ... Gervin’s personal attacks and threats,” “informed [Gervin]
3
he had earned those fucken [sic] A1A privileges.” (Id.) Plaintiff claims Gervin “then threatened
4
[him] by stating he would jump over th[e] desk and beat [him] if he cussed one more time” in
5
front of Correctional Officer Cruz, a female. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff apologized to Cruz, “informed
6
her he was sure she ha[d] heard a lot worse from her male counterparts,” and asked Gervin “if
7
the 602 interview was over so [he] could leave because he was frightened.” (Id.)
8
On or about September 26, 2011, Plaintiff filed a another CDC Form 602 Inmate Appeal
9
(Log No. CEN-C-11-01055), this time to report Gervin’s threats and “staff misconduct” during
10
the August 25, 2011 hearing. (Id.) Plaintiff’s CDC 602 requested that “no reprisals” be taken
11
against him by either Gervin or “his agents” in response to the appeal. (Id.) On October 11,
12
2011, C Facility Captain Carmargo conducted a first level review of Plaintiff’s claims, informed
13
him she would interview Gervin and Cruz, and that if his allegations were found to be true, she
14
would “take the appropriate action(s) against Lt. Gervin.” (Id.) On November 11, 2011,
15
however, Plaintiff claims he received a first level response from Associate Warden Defendant
16
Madden, which denied his appeal based on a finding that Gervin “did not violate any CDC
17
policy.” (Id.)
18
Four days later, on November 14, 2011, while Plaintiff was “conducting his function” as
19
the Mens’ Advisory Council (MAC) Secretary for housing unit C4,3 Defendant Lt. Martinez
20
issued Plaintiff a “CDC 114-D (lock-up order)” authorizing his placement in the Administrative
21
Segregation Unit (“Ad-Seg”) “pending an investigation by Sgt. Ratliff” into Plaintiff’s alleged
22
involvement in a “conspiracy to assault a peace officer.” (Id. at 6, 7.) Plaintiff claims “the
23
///
24
///
25
26
27
28
3
The MAC is “a representative association of prison inmates organized at the behest of ... the
Warden ... to advise him of complaints and recommendations from the inmates, and to communicate his
administrative decisions back to them. The general prison population elects the Council’s members.”
Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 196 (1993).
Plaintiff does not attribute his position on the MAC to any alleged act of retaliation against him, but
instead focuses solely on his CDC 602 inmate appeal activity against Gervin.
I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\GPC\12cv1298-MTD-FAC.wpd
-3-
11cv1298 GPC (MDD)
1
evidence [] Martinez relied upon to justify his placement in Ad-Seg” was “in the form of a ‘kite’
2
being dropped on Plaintiff’s cell number.” (Id. at 7.)4
3
Plaintiff was handcuffed and escorted to the Program Office by Sgt. Lamm, who ordered
4
him to “roll-up” out of cell C4-210. (Id. at 6.) Because Plaintiff’s cellmate was not also “rolled
5
up,” he became “immediately suspicious” because “whenever an inmate is rolled-up for
6
‘conspiracy to assault staff,’” his cellmate “is automatically rolled-up and placed in Ad-Seg
7
also.” (Id. at 6.)
8
On the next day, November 15, 2011, Defendant Madden held an Ad-Seg placement
9
hearing pursuant to CAL. CODE REGS., tit. 15 § 3337.5 At this hearing Plaintiff “strongly
10
asserted” his belief that Lt. Martinez’s CDC 114 lock-up order “reek[ed] of retaliation” because
11
it came so soon on the heals of Plaintiff’s CDC Form 602 against Gervin. (Id. at 8.) When
12
Madden “stated that Defendant Gervin was not even working the day (Nov. 14, 2011) Plaintiff
13
was placed in Ad-Seg,” Plaintiff remarked that he found it “interesting [Madden] would know
14
this information off the top of his head,” and suggested Gervin “was not that stupid, [and] would
15
have one of his fellow buddies like Lt. Martinez put the twist on [him].” (Id.)
16
Plaintiff alleges Lts. Gervin, Martinez, and Assoc. Warden Madden, in fact, “fabricated
17
... the [...] ‘kite’ evidence” in order to justify his placement in Ad-Seg as a “guise” that he was
18
involved in a conspiracy to assault a peace officer in order to retaliate against him for filing his
19
September 26, 2011 CDC 602 grievance against Gervin. (Id. at 7, 8-9.)
20
On November 17, 2011, Plaintiff appeared before an Institutional Classification
21
Committee (“ICC”), which included Defendant Calderon, a Chief Deputy Warden at CEN. (Id.
22
4
23
24
25
“A letter smuggled past prison officials to another prisoner is called a ‘kite.’” United States
v. Keys, 133 F.3d 1282, 1285 (9th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff claims he learned, during “an investigation
interview” with Defendant Sgt. Ratliff on December 16, 2011, and while he was still in Ad-Seg, that
“the alleged ‘kite’ made no direct reference to Plaintiff’s name as the person who was conspiring to
assault staff.” (Amend. Compl. at 7.)
5
26
27
28
“On the first work day following an inmate’s placement in administrative segregation,
designated staff at not less than the level of correctional captain will review the order portion of the CDC
Form114-D,” and make determinations as to “the appropriate assignment of staff assistance,” “the
inmate’s desire to call witnesses or submit other documentary evidence,” whether the “inmate has
waived the 72-hour time limit in which a classification hearing cannot be held,” whether he “desires
additional time to prepare for a classification hearing,” and “the most appropriate date and time for a
classification hearing.” CAL. CODE REGS., tit. 15 § 3337(a)-(d) (Jan. 2013).
I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\GPC\12cv1298-MTD-FAC.wpd
-4-
11cv1298 GPC (MDD)
1
at 2, 9.) Plaintiff claims Calderon and the ICC elected to retain him in Ad-Seg pending
2
Defendant Ratliff’s completion of the investigation into Plaintiff’s alleged participation in a
3
conspiracy to assault a peace officer, despite being “aware” that the “kite evidence” did not
4
specifically identify Plaintiff by name. (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff “stated his disagreement” with the
5
ICC’s decision, and “told Calderon that his placement and retention in Ad-Seg ... was fabricated
6
by ... Gervin, Lt. Martinez[,] and their associates” as a “purely retaliatory act[] for Plaintiff filing
7
staff misconduct 602 ... against Lt. Gervin.” (Id. at 10; see also Pl.’s Opp’n [ECF Doc. No. 21-
8
2] Ex. C at 4 CDC 128-G dated 11/17/11.)
9
Between November 27, 2011 and until December 16, 2011, while Plaintiff was retained
10
in Ad-Seg pending investigation into the kite, he alleges to have submitted numerous inmate
11
requests to Defendants Ratliff and Madden inquiring as to “when ... Ratliff was going to start
12
his investigation ... and interview [him].” (Amend. Compl. at 10.) Plaintiff claims to have
13
received no response, but after “an unnecessary and intentional delay of approximately thirty-
14
three (33) days,” on December 16, 2011, Defendant Ratliff interviewed him about his “alleged
15
involvement into the ‘conspiracy to assault a peace officer’” on C Facility. (Id.) During this
16
interview, Plaintiff denied any problems with staff or that he was planning to assault staff on C
17
Facility, and asked Ratliff what evidence was discovered. (Id. at 10-11.) Ratliff informed
18
Plaintiff that a “‘kite’ was dropped on Plaintiff’s cell (C4-210),” but confirmed that the kite “did
19
not have Plaintiff’s name on it.” (Id. at 11.) When Plaintiff asked Ratliff why his cellmate was
20
not “rolled up,” Ratliff said he did not know. (Id.) After the interview, Plaintiff claims Ratliff
21
issued a CDC 128-B Chrono “completing his investigation and f[inding] Plaintiff was not
22
involved.” (Id.; see also Pl.’s Opp’n [ECF Doc. No. 21-2] Ex. C. at 5, CDC-128B dated
23
12/16/11.) However, Plaintiff alleges Ratliff also retaliated against him “for filing the Gervin’s
24
threat 602,” by “intentionally delaying the start of [his] investigation.” (Amend. Compl. at 11.)
25
Plaintiff claims Gervin is Ratliff’s “immediate supervisor on C Facility.” (Id. at 10.)
26
On January 26, 2012, “forty (40) days after Ratliff completed his investigation,” Plaintiff
27
re-appeared before an ICC panel, including Defendants Madden and Calderon. (Amend. Compl.
28
at 12; see also Pl.’s Opp’n [ECF Doc. No. 21-2] Ex. C at 6.) The ICC noted that because the
I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\GPC\12cv1298-MTD-FAC.wpd
-5-
11cv1298 GPC (MDD)
1
investigation into his suspected involvement in a conspiracy to assault staff had been completed,
2
and Ratliff’s CDC 128B dated 12/16/11 recommended Plaintiff be released from Ad-Seg
3
because “there was no corroborating information”6 to support a charge of conspiracy to assault
4
staff, Plaintiff was no longer deemed a threat to the safety and security of the institution, and
5
cleared for release to C Facility’s general population. (Id.) At that time, “[a]s permitted per
6
[CAL. CODE REGS., tit. 15 §] 3375(g)(1)(D), Plaintiff stated his dissatisfaction with his placement
7
in Ad-Seg and alleged Defendants [] Gervin, Martinez, Madden, Calderon, and various
8
Centinela officials [had] fabricated the ‘kite’ evidence ... in order to retaliate against [him] for
9
submitting a staff misconduct 602 against their union representative and colleague Lt. Gervin.”
10
(Amend. Compl. at 12; see also Pl.’s Opp’n Ex. C at 6.) Plaintiff further alleges Madden “cut
11
[him] short and informed him he would see [him] at his annual review in March 2012.”
12
(Amend. Compl. at 12.)
13
Plaintiff claims Defendants Madden and Calderon retaliated against him by “intentionally
14
delaying his appearance before [the] ICC for approximately 33 days after the completion of the
15
investigation” on December 16, 2011,” because “it takes one (1) week to be scheduled and seen
16
by an ICC after the completion of an investigation.” (Id. at 12-13.)
17
II.
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
18
Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P.
19
12(b)(6) on grounds that he has failed to state a retaliation claim as to each of them. See Defs.’
20
P&As in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss (ECF Doc. 8-1) at 3-8. Plaintiff has filed an Opposition
21
which includes exhibits in support (ECF Doc. No. 21).
22
A.
FED.R.CIV .P. 12(b)(6) Standard of Review
23
A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal may be based on either a “‘lack of a cognizable legal theory’
24
or ‘the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.’” Johnson v. Riverside
25
Healthcare System, LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Balistreri v. Pacifica
26
27
28
6
Pursuant to CAL. CODE REGS., tit. 15 § 3321(b), “[n]o decision shall be based upon information
from a confidential source, unless other documentation corroborates information from the source, or
unless the circumstances surrounding the event and the documented reliability of the source satisfies the
decision maker(s) that the information is true.” Id. § 3321(b)(1) (Jan. 2013).
I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\GPC\12cv1298-MTD-FAC.wpd
-6-
11cv1298 GPC (MDD)
1
Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990)). In other words, the plaintiff’s complaint must
2
provide a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that [he] is entitled to relief.” Id.
3
(citing FED.R.CIV.P. 8(a)(2)).
4
“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
5
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
6
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim
7
has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
8
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 679 (citing
9
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported
10
by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Twombly, 550 U.S. at
11
555 (on motion to dismiss court is “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as
12
a factual allegation.”). “The pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed
13
factual allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-
14
me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citations omitted).
15
In analyzing a pleading, the Court sets conclusory factual allegations aside, accepts all
16
non-conclusory factual allegations as true, and determines whether those non-conclusory factual
17
allegations accepted as true state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
18
at 676–684; Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that
19
the court need not accept legal conclusions, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable
20
inferences as true). And while “[t]he plausibility standard is not akin to a probability
21
requirement,” it does “ask[] for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
22
unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In
23
determining plausibility, the Court is permitted “to draw on its judicial experience and common
24
sense.” Id. at 679.
25
Nevertheless, claims asserted by pro se petitioners, “however inartfully pleaded,” are held
26
“to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404
27
U.S. 519-20 (1972). Thus, courts “continue to construe pro se filings liberally when evaluating
28
them under Iqbal.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Bretz v.
I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\GPC\12cv1298-MTD-FAC.wpd
-7-
11cv1298 GPC (MDD)
1
Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985) (noting that courts “have an obligation where
2
the petitioner is pro se, particularly in civil rights cases, to construe the pleadings liberally and
3
to afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.”)).
4
Finally, when resolving a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court may not
5
generally consider materials outside the pleadings, except for exhibits which are attached. See
6
FED.R.CIV.P. 10(c) (“A copy of a written instrument that is an exhibit to a pleading is a part of
7
the pleading for all purposes.”); Schneider v. California Dept. of Corrections, 151 F.3d 1194,
8
1197 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998); Jacobellis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 120 F.3d 171, 172 (9th
9
Cir. 1997); Allarcom Pay Television Ltd. v. General Instrument Corp., 69 F.3d 381, 385 (9th Cir.
10
1995). “The focus of any Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal ... is the complaint.” Schneider, 151 F.3d at
11
1197 n.1.
12
This precludes consideration of “new” allegations that may be raised in a plaintiff’s
13
opposition to a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6). Id. (citing Harrell
14
v. United States, 13 F.3d 232, 236 (7th Cir. 1993); 2 MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE, § 12.34[2]
15
(Matthew Bender 3d ed.) (“The court may not . . . take into account additional facts asserted in
16
a memorandum opposing the motion to dismiss, because such memoranda do not constitute
17
pleadings under Rule 7(a).”). Thus, if a complaint fails to state a claim, the plaintiff may not
18
insert the missing allegations in the opposition. Harrell, 13 F.3d at 236. “He is free however
19
to submit documents which show that the complaint as worded encompasses a claim that would
20
entitle him to relief.” Id. (citations omitted).
21
B.
Retaliation Claims
22
Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five basic
23
elements. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 449 (9th Cir. 2000). First, the plaintiff must allege
24
that the retaliated-against conduct is protected. The filing of an inmate grievance is protected
25
conduct. Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009); Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d
26
559, 568 (9th Cir. 2005). Second, the plaintiff must claim the defendant took adverse action
27
against the plaintiff. Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 567. The adverse action need not be an independent
28
constitutional violation. Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995). Instead, “the mere
I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\GPC\12cv1298-MTD-FAC.wpd
-8-
11cv1298 GPC (MDD)
1
threat of harm can be an adverse action.” Brodheim, 584 F.3d at 1270. Third, the plaintiff must
2
allege a causal connection between the adverse action and the protected conduct. Because direct
3
evidence of retaliatory intent rarely can be pleaded in a complaint, allegation of a chronology
4
of events from which retaliation can be inferred is sufficient to survive dismissal. See Pratt, 65
5
F.3d at 808 (“timing can properly be considered as circumstantial evidence of retaliatory
6
intent”). Fourth, the plaintiff must allege that the “official’s acts would chill or silence a person
7
of ordinary firmness from future First Amendment activities.” Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 568 (internal
8
quotation marks and emphasis omitted). “[A] plaintiff who fails to allege a chilling effect may
9
still state a claim if he alleges he suffered some other harm,” Brodheim, 584 F.3d at 1269, that
10
is “more than minimal,” Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 568 n.11. That the retaliatory conduct did not chill
11
the plaintiff from suing the alleged retaliator does not defeat the retaliation claim at the motion
12
to dismiss stage. Id. at 569.
13
C.
Discussion
14
To the extent Plaintiff’s retaliation claims against Gervin focus on his behavior during
15
the August 25, 2011 second level review hearing on Plaintiff’s CDC 602 Log No. CEN-C-11-
16
00779, Gervin argues that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against him he has failed to allege
17
that Gervin took any action against him that was “adverse.” Second, Gervin, Martinez, and
18
Madden argue Plaintiff’s fabricated kite allegations are “implausible” and rely merely on “naked
19
conclusions and unsupported inferences.” (Defs.’ P&A’s in Supp. of Mot. [ECF Doc. No. 8-1]
20
at 3-5, 7-8 citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79.) Finally, Martinez, Ratliff, and Calderon argue
21
Plaintiff’s claims against them are insufficient to show any of them were aware of Plaintiff’s
22
previous CDC 602 grievance against Gervin; therefore, he has failed to allege plausible facts
23
which demonstrate they acted against him “because of” his protected conduct. (Id. at 3, 6-7.)
24
First, as to Lt. Gervin actions on August 25, 2011, Plaintiff alleges Gervin conducted the
25
second level interview at to his CDC 602 (Log No. CEN-C-11-00779) involving limitations on
26
his recreational yard access, and that he “started yelling at [him] and threatening [him]” during
27
the hearing, accused him of knowing nothing about due process and equal protection, and
28
“threaten[ed] to deny” Plaintiff’s grievance “because [he] cited the incorrect” prison regulation.
I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\GPC\12cv1298-MTD-FAC.wpd
-9-
11cv1298 GPC (MDD)
1
(Amend. Compl. at 4.) When Plaintiff became “frustrated with ... Gervin’s personal attacks and
2
threats” and used profane language in response, Plaintiff further alleges Gervin “stat[ed] he
3
would jump over th[e] desk and beat [him].” (Id.)
4
Gervin argues that he was simply “engaged in an interview regarding [Plaintiff’s]
5
grievance,” and that he had a legitimate penological purpose in “explor[ing] and challeng[ing]
6
his claims,” (Defs.’ Mem. of P&As at 5); therefore, Plaintiff has failed to allege his actions were
7
adverse. Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 567.
8
However, Plaintiff contends Gervin went further than simply “exploring” the grounds for
9
Plaintiff’s grievance, actually threatened his safety, “frightened” and “had a chilling effect on
10
[him].” (Amend. Compl. at 4-5.) In Brodheim, the Ninth Circuit held that a prisoner alleging
11
retaliation “need not establish that [the prison official’s] statement contained an explicit, specific
12
threat of discipline or transfer.” 584 F.3d at 1270. Even “a statement that ‘warns’ a person to
13
stop doing something carries the implication of some consequence of a failure to heed that
14
warning,” is sufficient to show “some form of punishment or adverse regulatory action.” Id. at
15
1270-71. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations against Gervin related to the August
16
25, 2011 CDC 602 hearing are sufficient to plead the “adverse action” element of a First
17
Amendment retaliation claim. See Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 567.
18
Second, Defendants Martinez, Gervin, and Madden argue that to the extent Plaintiff
19
claims they “fabricated the ... ‘kite’ evidence” which was used to justify his placement in [Ad-
20
Seg] for the ‘conspiracy to assault a peace officer,’” his allegations constitute only “naked
21
conclusions and unsupported inferences,” and thus, are insufficient to support a “plausible claim
22
for relief.” (Defs.’ P&As in Supp. of Mot. at 4-5, 8 citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79.) As to
23
Defendant Martinez, the Court agrees. As to Defendants Gervin and Madden, however, the
24
Court disagrees.
25
In Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283 (9th Cir. 2003), the Ninth Circuit determined that triable
26
issues of fact existed to support a retaliation claim where the plaintiff alleged he was falsely
27
accused of prison gang activity because he had filed inmate grievances. Id. at 1288-89. In
28
Bruce, the prisoner, like Plaintiff in this case, pointed to the “suspect timing of the validation–
I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\GPC\12cv1298-MTD-FAC.wpd
-10-
11cv1298 GPC (MDD)
1
coming soon after his success in [filing] prison conditions grievances,” the fact that the same
2
evidence used to support his validation had previously been determined insufficient, and that the
3
prison officials who validated him knew he had “pissed off higher-ups” with his “complaints and
4
protests,” as circumstantial evidence sufficient to support an inference of retaliatory motive. Id.
5
Indeed, even years prior to Bruce, the Ninth Circuit made clear that while “the timing and
6
nature” of an allegedly adverse action can “properly be considered” as circumstantial evidence
7
of a retaliatory intent, the officials alleged to have retaliated must also have been aware of the
8
plaintiff’s protected conduct in order to support that inference. See Sorrano’s Gasco, Inc. v.
9
Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310, 1315-16 (9th Cir. 1989); Pratt, 65 F.3d at 808.
10
As to Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendants Gervin and Madden, the Court finds his
11
fabricated kite claims are not merely “unsupported inferences,” under Iqbal, but rather, are
12
sufficient, when coupled with Plaintiff’s additional allegations, to state a plausible claim of
13
retaliation. 556 U.S. at 679; Bruce, 351 F.3d at 1288-89. Like the Plaintiff in Bruce, Plaintiff
14
alleges to have been accused of conspiracy to assault a peace officer and placed in Ad-Seg as
15
a result of false evidence he claims was manufactured by Gervin and Madden just days after he
16
learned that his CDC 602 staff misconduct complaint against Gervin had been dismissed by
17
Madden. See Amend. Compl. at 5; Pratt, 65 F.3d at 808. Plaintiff specifically alleges that
18
Gervin was aware of his grievance because he was informed on October 11, 2011 that Captain
19
Carmargo would interview Gervin and Cruz, and “take appropriate action” against Gervin if his
20
allegations were found to be true. (Amend. Compl. at 5.) Plaintiff further alleges that Madden,
21
in his capacity as Associate Warden, was the person who reviewed and denied his grievance
22
against Gervin. (Id.) This knowledge, when coupled with the timing of the kite which
23
implicated him in a conspiracy to assault peace officers, resulted in his segregation for more than
24
two months, and was ultimately found to be uncorroborated, while perhaps not conclusive of
25
retaliatory motive, is sufficient to “plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief” against Defendants
26
Gervin and Madden. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681; see also Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108,
27
1115 (9th Cir. 2012) (reversing district court’s dismissal of retaliation claims for failing to state
28
a claim where prisoner alleged he filed a grievance against an official, and “shortly after” was
I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\GPC\12cv1298-MTD-FAC.wpd
-11-
11cv1298 GPC (MDD)
1
accused of “false” disciplinary charges, segregated, and denied parole based in part, on prison
2
officials’ “lies to the parole board.”).
3
Plaintiff’s claims against Lt. Martinez, however, specifically that he issued Plaintiff’s
4
CDC 114 “lock-up” order based on information contained in the kite that he, along with Gervin
5
and Madden “fabricated” as a “guise” in order to retaliate against Plaintiff for filing a grievance
6
against Gervin (Amend, Compl. at 7-8), do fail to state a plausible claim for relief because they
7
are based on an unsupported assumption that Martinez knew about Plaintiff’s previous grievance
8
against Gervin, and instead rely solely on Plaintiff’s speculation that Gervin “was not that stupid,
9
[and] would have one of his fellow buddies like Lt. Martinez put the twist on [him].” (Amend.
10
Compl. at 8.) See Pratt, 65 F.3d at 808 (rejecting prisoner’s claims of suspect timing where he
11
did not also allege that official was “actually aware” of his protected conduct); Iqbal, 556 U.S.
12
at 678 (noting that facts which are “merely consistent with” a defendant’s liability, but “stop[]
13
short of the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief,’” are insufficient
14
to survive a motion to dismiss) (citation omitted).
15
Plaintiff’s allegations against the remaining Defendants, Sgt. Ratliff and Chief Deputy
16
Warden Calderon, fail to state a plausible claim for retaliation for the same reasons. Plaintiff
17
alleges Ratliff was assigned to investigate the kite, and that he “intentionally” delayed his
18
investigation “in retaliation for Plaintiff’s “filing the Gervin’s threat 602.” (Amend. Compl. at
19
10, 11.) However, Plaintiff alleges no facts to plausibly suggest how or why Ratliff was even
20
aware of Plaintiff’s previous grievance against Gervin, and like his claims against Lt. Martinez,
21
simply speculates that Ratliff delayed his investigation because Gervin was his “immediate
22
supervisor.” (Id. at 10.) See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (“[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not
23
permit the court to infer more that the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has
24
alleged–but it has not ‘show[n]’– ‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’”) (citing FED.R.CIV.P.
25
8(a)(2)); see also Pratt, 65 F.3d at 808 (finding it “sheer speculation to assume” that one official
26
with knowledge of the plaintiff’s protected conduct “discussed” that activity with his superiors).
27
Plaintiff alleges Deputy Warden Calderon was a member of the ICC that initially
28
reviewed his Ad-Seg placement on November 17, 2011, authorized his retention in Ad-Seg
I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\GPC\12cv1298-MTD-FAC.wpd
-12-
11cv1298 GPC (MDD)
1
pending completion of Ratliff’s investigation into the kite, and “intentionally delayed” his
2
second appearance before the ICC after Ratliff’s investigation was complete. (Amend. Compl.
3
at 9.) While Plaintiff alleges Calderon was “aware” that the kite did not identify him by name
4
on November 17, 2011–a full month before he alleges Ratliff completed his investigation into
5
the kite–he still alleges no facts which might support an inference that Calderon knew, or had
6
any reason to know, that Plaintiff had previously filed any grievances against Gervin, until
7
Plaintiff himself “told” Calderon during his November 17, 2011 and January 26, 2012 ICC
8
hearings that he believed the kite was fabricated in retaliation for his staff misconduct complaint
9
against Gervin. (Id. at 10, 12.) See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; Pratt, 65 F.3d at 808.
10
As to Plaintiff’s claims that both Ratliff and Calderon “intentionally delayed” the
11
investigation into the kite or his release from Ad-Seg after its completion, the Court finds these
12
allegations too are simply “naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement,” and thus,
13
insufficient to show a plausible entitlement to relief. See Amend. Compl. at 11, 12-13; Iqbal,
14
556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Indeed, the Court finds, in its “judicial
15
experience” with prison disciplinary proceedings and the “common sense” security issues ever-
16
present within a dangerous institutional setting, id. at 679, that the “more likely explanation” for
17
delay was Defendants’ need to fully complete the investigation into a kite that contained
18
information related to a potentially dangerous plan to assault staff emanating from Plaintiff’s
19
cell, and to either initiate disciplinary proceedings against him or release him if that investigation
20
turned up no corroborating evidence of his involvement. Id. at 682 (analyzing “obvious
21
alternative explanations” and rejecting purposeful discrimination as a “plausible conclusion”
22
sufficient to survive defendants’ motion to dismiss).7
23
///
24
7
25
26
27
28
In fact, Plaintiff’s First Level Appeal Response to the CDC 602 he filed on December 4, 2011,
Log No. CEN-A-11-01257, which he attaches to his Opposition and is related to the retaliation claims
alleged in this action, indicates that “as of [January 4, 2011], the investigation ha[d] not been
completed,” that “investigations normally take between 30 and 120 days to complete depending on the
complexity of the issues,” and that Plaintiff had a “Classification Staff Representative (CSR) approved
extension for continued [Ad-Seg] placement until February 15, 2012.” See Pl.’s Opp’n, Ex. C [ECF
Doc. No. 21-1] at 24. Plaintiff was informed that “once the investigation [was] complete[], [he would]
be scheduled for the next available ICC.” Id.; see also CAL. CODE REGS., tit. 15 § 3335(d)(1),(2), (e)(3)
(Jan. 2013).
I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\GPC\12cv1298-MTD-FAC.wpd
-13-
11cv1298 GPC (MDD)
1
Finally, the Court further finds that to the extent Plaintiff implies that Calderon, Martinez,
2
Ratliff, and Madden all conspired to retaliate against him for filing a CDC 602 against Gervin
3
because Gervin was “their union representative and colleague,” Plaintiff’s assertion amounts to
4
no more than a mere “unwarranted deduction” which is insufficient to support a reasonable
5
inference that they knew he had filed a grievance against Gervin and decided to retaliated against
6
him because of it. Amend. Compl. at 12; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Sprewell, 266 F.3d at 988;
7
Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 567 (noting that viable claim of retaliation entails, in part, “[a]n assertion
8
that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate ... because of ... that prisoner’s
9
protected conduct...” (italics added)).
10
III.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
11
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
12
Plaintiff’s retaliation claims against Lt. Gervin and Associate Warden Madden, and GRANTS
13
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s retaliation claims against Lt. Martinez, Sgt. Ratliff
14
and Chief Deputy Warden Calderon pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6) (ECF Doc. No. 8).
15
16
The Court further ORDERS Defendants Gervin and Madden to file an Answer to
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint within the time provided by FED.R.CIV.P. 12(a)(4)(A).
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
DATED: September 16, 2013
19
HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL
United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\GPC\12cv1298-MTD-FAC.wpd
-14-
11cv1298 GPC (MDD)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?