(PC) Riley v. Tallerico
1:16-cv-01189
E.D. Cal.Dec 8, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Shannon Riley, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for claims arising from events in 2015 at a California prison.
- The magistrate judge previously screened the Third Amended Complaint and allowed claims to proceed against Officer Yerry (equal protection re: May 16, 2015; Eighth Amendment excessive force; First Amendment retaliation re: cell search), against Officer Trotter (retaliation re: cell search), and against appeals coordinator Tallerico (retaliation for denying/ cancelling appeals); all other claims/defendants were dismissed.
- After the screening order issued but before defendants were served or appeared, the Ninth Circuit decided Williams v. King, holding that a magistrate judge lacks jurisdiction to decide a civil case unless all parties (plaintiffs and defendants) have consented.
- Citing Williams, the magistrate judge recommends that the district judge dismiss the claims and defendants that were dismissed in the earlier screening order (i.e., to conform the case to proper jurisdictional posture) while preserving the limited claims allowed to proceed.
- Key factual allegations underlying the surviving claims: (1) May 16, 2015 visit—Officer Yerry allegedly subjected Riley to racial/sexual comments and forced demeaning strip/bending conduct (equal protection claim); (2) January–February 2015—cell search by Officers Yerry and Trotter allegedly scattered/destroyed legal papers and ignored a medical chrono requiring waist chains, causing pain (retaliation and Eighth Amendment claims); (3) multiple grievances allegedly denied/cancelled by Tallerico, with retaliatory remarks.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Magistrate jurisdiction to screen/dismiss before defendants' consent | Magistrate could screen and dismiss under §1915A based on plaintiff's consent | Defendants had not consented; Williams requires consent of all parties for magistrate to decide case | Because defendants were not served/consenting, magistrate lacked jurisdiction per Williams; recommends dismissal consistent with prior screening order |
| Access-to-courts (loss/destruction of legal materials) | Missing/destroyed legal property caused dismissal of Riley's prior federal case and hindered litigation | No factual link shown between alleged property loss and the court's reasons for dismissal | Claim dismissed for failure to allege actual injury connecting property loss to case dismissal |
| Equal protection (May 16, 2015 conduct by Yerry) | Yerry subjected Riley to racialized sexual humiliation based on race | Yerry's conduct not race-based or not actionable | Claim against Yerry for Fourteenth Amendment equal protection may proceed (sufficiently alleged) |
| Retaliation (cell search; appeals handling) | Cell search shortly after grievance filing and denial/cancellation of appeals were retaliatory | Actions served legitimate penological interests or lacked causal link to protected conduct | Retaliation claim proceeds against Yerry and Trotter for the cell search; retaliation claim proceeds against Tallerico for cancelling/denying appeals; other alleged retaliation/harassment claims dismissed |
| Eighth Amendment (force and painful cuffing despite medical chrono) | Yerry ignored medical chrono, handcuffed Riley behind back causing severe pain and left him restrained ~45 minutes | Use of force was for security/discipline and not malicious | Eighth Amendment claim against Yerry survives screening (sufficient factual allegations) |
| Monell/custom or policy liability | Defendants acted pursuant to policy/custom permitting constitutional deprivations | Plaintiff failed to identify a specific policy or causal link | Failure to state a municipal/custom claim; dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017) (magistrate needs consent of all parties to exercise full case-deciding jurisdiction)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard—legal conclusions not accepted; plausibility required)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (prisoners' right of access to courts requires showing of actual injury)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992) (use-of-force Eighth Amendment standard—malicious and sadistic vs. good-faith discipline)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard)
- Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of prisoner First Amendment retaliation claim)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (municipal liability requires showing of policy and direct causal link)