Young v. Herrea

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California recommends allowing Gale Joseph Young’s action to proceed against correctional officer Herrea on an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim. The court recommends dismissing all other claims and defendants, including claims concerning property deprivation, supervisory liability, retaliation, false reports, and claims barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Holdings

1. Liberally construed, Plaintiff stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against correctional officer Herrea based on allegedly slamming Plaintiff headfirst while Plaintiff was handcuffed.
2. Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim based on the alleged unauthorized deprivation of his property because California provides a meaningful post-deprivation remedy.
3. Plaintiff failed to state a supervisory-liability claim against Sergeant Gonzales or any other supervisor because he did not allege personal participation, direction, knowledge coupled with failure to act, or a constitutionally deficient policy that was the moving force behind a violation.
4. Plaintiff could not pursue damages or injunctive-relief claims against California, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, or Corcoran because the Eleventh Amendment bars such § 1983 claims absent waiver or valid congressional abrogation.
5. Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim because he did not adequately identify protected conduct, the adverse action and actor, a chilling effect or more-than-minimal harm, and the absence of a legitimate correctional goal.
6. The alleged falsification of prison reports or chronos, standing alone, did not state a claim under § 1983.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff's allegations that correctional officer Herrea slammed him headfirst while handcuffed plausibly state an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim.
2. Whether Plaintiff's allegations concerning the confiscation and nonreturn of his television, CD player, and CD state a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due-process claim.
3. Whether Plaintiff stated a First Amendment prisoner-retaliation claim.
4. Whether supervisory-liability allegations stated a § 1983 claim against Sergeant Gonzales or other supervisors.
5. Whether claims for damages or injunctive relief against the California Department of Rehabilitation and Correction or other state entities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
6. Whether alleged false prison reports or chronos, standing alone, state a claim under § 1983.

Disposition

other