Raymond Watison v. Mary Carter
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2818
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Watison sues Nevada prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, pro se, alleging Eighth and First Amendment violations and state-law claims.
- District court dismisses some claims with prejudice; district court later reviewed remaining federal claims de novo.
- Court reviews dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 12(b)(6) standards, liberally in favor of pro se plaintiff.
- Eighth Amendment claim against Officer LaGier involves a brief brush and alleged humiliation, not a serious injury.
- First Amendment retaliation claims arise from grievances and alleged adverse actions by Carter, Rodriguez, Santos, and LaGier; district court dismisses some claims, remand ordered for others.
- Nevada state-law claims under NRS §§ 197.200, 197.210, 197.220, and 212.020 are dismissed with prejudice; remand on jurisdiction and potential state-law theories is ordered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eighth Amendment claim against LaGier survives | Watison suffered sexual harassment and humiliation | Alleged conduct not objectively serious | Claim properly dismissed for lack of a serious injury |
| First Amendment retaliation claims against Carter and Rodriguez | Actions were in retaliation for grievances | Claims insufficiently show causation and chill | Claims pleaded sufficiently; reversed and remanded |
| First Amendment retaliation claim against Santos | Threatened to punch after grievance; retaliation | Insufficient factual basis for retaliation | Should not have been dismissed on the pleadings; remand for amendment |
| First Amendment retaliation claim against LaGier | Breakfast denial tied to grievances; retaliatory | Insufficient factual connection and chilling effect | District court should have allowed amendment; remand for leave to amend |
| State-law claims and supplemental jurisdiction | State claims should proceed with federal action | Either dismiss or decline supplemental jurisdiction | Remanded for district court to decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521 (9th Cir.1993) (Eighth Amendment standard for certain searches and injuries)
- Somers v. Thurman, 109 F.3d 614 (9th Cir.1997) (Not all verbal insults violate Eighth Amendment; extreme cases required)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 1992) (Eighth Amendment requires deprivation to be sufficiently serious)
- Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir.2009) (Elements of retaliation claims incl. protected conduct and chilling effect, plus causation)
- Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 (9th Cir.2005) (Protected conduct includes filing grievances; retaliation standard)
- Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802 (9th Cir.1995) (Adverse action need not be separate constitutional violation; timing can show retaliatory intent)
- Robinson v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 (9th Cir.2005) (Chilling effect standard in retaliation claims)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard for prison conditions)
- Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 (1909) (Constitutional interpretation and vitality of the Constitution)