(PC) Henry v. Miranda
1:16-cv-00458
E.D. Cal.Dec 1, 2016Background
- Kenneth R. Henry, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and submitted a First Amended Complaint (FAC).
- Henry alleges that in March–April 2015 he was placed in an E-yard kitchen third-watch job despite repeatedly requesting reassignment after a mental-health crisis; Counselor Miranda allegedly refused to remove him.
- After returning from a crisis bed, Henry was reassigned to the same kitchen post; he had about 83–93 days before his parole date and claims the assignment exposed him to hostile staff and resulted in multiple false write-ups.
- Henry contends the assignment and write-ups were retaliatory for filing numerous 602 grievances, part of a conspiracy by supervisors Torres and Luna, and motivated by race and other improper reasons.
- The FAC asserted federal claims (retaliation, Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment, equal protection, denial of due process) and state-law tort claims (Bane Act, false imprisonment, negligence, IIED).
- The magistrate judge screened the FAC under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and dismissed it for failure to state a cognizable federal claim, granting leave to amend on specified grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process / right to particular prison job | Henry: forcible placement in unwanted kitchen duty violated constitutional rights and subjected him to harm | Defendants: assignment falls within prison authority and does not implicate a protected liberty or property interest | Dismissed — no constitutional right to specific prison employment; placement alone not a due process violation |
| Equal protection (racial discrimination) | Henry: he was singled out as an older Black man and treated differently (assignment, write-ups) | Defendants: no facts showing intentional race-based discrimination or differential treatment of similarly situated inmates | Dismissed — FAC lacks factual allegations showing race-based intentional discrimination or disparate treatment |
| Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) | Henry: forced assignment amid hostile staff and repeated conflicts amounted to cruel and unusual punishment | Defendants: allegations do not show objectively serious conditions or deliberate indifference by officials | Dismissed — allegations do not meet objective/subjective Eighth Amendment standard |
| Retaliation (First Amendment) | Henry: adverse actions (assignment, false write-ups) were in retaliation for filing 602 grievances | Defendants: no factual nexus shown between protected grievances and adverse actions; no showing of chilled exercise or lack of penological purpose | Not sustained but leave to amend — close to stating a claim; plaintiff must plead facts showing causation, chilling, and lack of legitimate penological purpose |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference standard for Eighth Amendment)
- Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236 (1976) (no due process oversight for ordinary prison administrative decisions within sentence)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (§ 1983 as remedy for deprivation of federal rights)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (equal protection requires similarly situated persons be treated alike)
- Freeman v. Rideout, 808 F.2d 949 (2d Cir. 1986) (no constitutional immunity from false accusations absent protected liberty interest)
- Walker v. Gomez, 370 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2004) (no property or liberty interest in prison employment except in cases of racial discrimination)