Raymond Watison v. Mary Carter

668 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2012) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · February 13, 2012 · No. 10-16778

Summary

The Ninth Circuit reviewed the dismissal of Raymond Watison's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Nevada prison officials. The court affirmed dismissal of his Eighth Amendment sexual-harassment claim and one First Amendment retaliation claim, but reinstated several other retaliation claims, granted leave to amend one claim, and remanded the state-law claims for reconsideration of supplemental jurisdiction. Judge Noonan concurred in part and dissented from the disposition of the Eighth Amendment claim.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Jerome Farris; John T. Noonan; Carlos T. Bea
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
February 13, 2012
Docket number
10-16778
Procedural posture
Appeal from dismissal with prejudice of a pro se prisoner's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Nevada-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Standard of review
De novo review of dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), applying the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard. The court accepts material factual allegations as true, construes them in the plaintiff's favor, and liberally construes pro se pleadings.
Precedential value
published and precedential
Parties
Raymond Watison v. Mary Carter, Craig Madieros, Don Helling, Joseph Rodriguez, Sean LaGier, Danilo Santos, Christine Carmazzi, Rosa Rodriguez, Candice Nya
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

section 1983prisoners rightsfirst amendmentcruel and unusual punishmentmotions to dismiss

Practice areas

civil rightsconstitutional lawprisoners' rightsappellate procedurecivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the alleged brief thigh-to-thigh contact and sexualized conduct by Officer LaGier stated an Eighth Amendment claim.
  2. Whether Watison sufficiently pleaded First Amendment retaliation claims against Carter, Rosa Rodriguez, Santos, and LaGier.
  3. Whether the alleged retaliation claim against Joseph Rodriguez was adequately pleaded and, if not, whether Watison should receive leave to amend.
  4. Whether the district court erred by dismissing Watison's Nevada-law claims with prejudice after potentially declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Holdings

  1. A brief brush of a prison guard's leg against an inmate's thigh, accompanied by alleged sexualized conduct and resulting humiliation, did not constitute an objectively sufficiently serious deprivation or severe psychological pain cognizable under the Eighth Amendment.
  2. Watison sufficiently pleaded First Amendment retaliation claims based on grievances followed by a false disciplinary charge, administrative segregation, and interference with his parole hearing.
  3. Watison sufficiently pleaded a First Amendment retaliation claim where Santos allegedly threatened to punch him because of a grievance.
  4. Watison sufficiently pleaded a First Amendment retaliation claim where LaGier allegedly denied him breakfast in retaliation for grievances.
  5. The complaint failed to state a First Amendment retaliation claim against Joseph Rodriguez because it did not describe the alleged harassment or plead chilling effect, causation, and lack of penological justification, but Watison was entitled to leave to amend.
  6. The district court erred by dismissing the Nevada-law claims with prejudice; on remand it had to decide anew whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and, if declining jurisdiction, dismiss the claims without prejudice.

Key quotations

Because Officer LaGier’s “alleged wrongdoing was [not] objectively ‘harmful enough’ to establish a constitutional violation,” the district court properly dismissed Watison’s Eighth Amendment claim against LaGier. (668 F.3d at 1114)
A retaliation claim has five elements. (668 F.3d at 1115)
Here, Watison might cure his pleadings by alleging more facts—namely, the what, when, and where of Rodriguez’s alleged harassing behavior; the harassment’s chilling effect; its connection to the grievance Watison filed against Rodriguez; and the absence of a penological justification for Rodriguez’s behavior. (668 F.3d at 1117)

Factual background

Watison, an inmate at Nevada State Prison, alleged that Officer Sean LaGier entered his cell while he was using the toilet, rubbed his thigh against Watison's thigh, and acted sexually. He also alleged that prison officials retaliated against him for filing grievances by issuing a false disciplinary charge, placing him in administrative segregation, interfering with his parole hearing, threatening physical violence, and denying him breakfast. Watison additionally asserted claims under Nevada criminal statutes.

Procedural history

Watison sued Nevada prison officials alleging violations of the Eighth and First Amendments and various Nevada laws. The District of Nevada dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the Eighth Amendment claim against LaGier, reversed dismissal of several First Amendment retaliation claims, reversed denial of leave to amend the retaliation claim against Joseph Rodriguez, and reversed dismissal with prejudice of the state-law claims.

Remand instructions

Affirm dismissal with prejudice of the Eighth Amendment claim against LaGier. Remand the retaliation claims against Carter, Rosa Rodriguez, LaGier, and Santos for further proceedings; grant Watison leave to amend the retaliation claim against Joseph Rodriguez; and reconsider whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Nevada-law claims, dismissing them without prejudice if jurisdiction is declined.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…