Hill v. Rhude
| Decision Date | 25 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 2:20-cv-01868-JAD-VCF |
| Citation | 556 F.Supp.3d 1144 |
| Parties | Rickie HILL, Plaintiff v. RHUDE, et al., Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nevada |
HDSP Law Library, for Plaintiff.
Aaron D. Ford-AG, Douglas R. Rands, Nevada Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Defendant Rhude.
Douglas R. Rands, Nevada Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Defendant Jesus Ruiz.
Order Screening Complaint and Granting Limited Leave to Amend by September 27, 2021
Pro se plaintiff Rickie Hill, an inmate at Nevada's High Desert State Prison, brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that by disregarding the risks of COVID-19, correctional officer Rhude and his supervising lieutenant Ruiz violated Hill's First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Because Hill applies to proceed in forma pauperis , I screen his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and find that his Eighth Amendment claims for emotional harm may proceed as to punitive damages and injunctive relief but not as to compensatory damages. His Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection claim against Rhude also may proceed, but I dismiss with prejudice any Fourteenth Amendment claim against Ruiz. I also dismiss Hill's retaliation claims without prejudice and with leave to amend by September 27, 2021.
According to Hill, most staff at HDSP do not wear masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19, which is a constant threat to his health.2 On July 23, 2020, he sent an inmate request to Ruiz, alerting him that half of the correctional officers were not adhering to the Director of the Nevada Department of Corrections’ directive requiring all correctional officers to wear masks.3 Ruiz responded the next day, apologizing and noting that he had heard about "one specific officer" not wearing his mask and emphasizing that the directive "WILL BE ENFORCED."4
Three weeks later, Rhude came to Hill's cell without a mask.5 Hill reminded Rhude that, per the NDOC Director's directive, he was required to wear a face mask in the presence of inmates.6 Hill is Black, Jewish, and gay.7 Rhude, who is white, walked to the side of Hill's cell door and began blowing into the cell, stating that he had an "asymptomatic" COVID-19 infection and "hate[d] Gay Black/Jews," and that the next time he searched Hill's cell he would "throw away all [of Hill's] legal work."8 Hill twice felt spittle droplets when Rhude blew into his cell.9 Hill asked for a grievance, but Rhude denied it and stated, 10 Hill has since suffered from daily nightmares of dying from COVID-19, loss of sleep, depression, heightened anxiety, and mental anguish from the psychological pain.11
Hill sues Rhude and Ruiz, alleging that Rhude discriminated against him based on race, religion, and sexual orientation; and retaliatorily denied him access to grievance procedures; and Ruiz failed to ensure that his subordinates wore masks and retaliated against Hill for filing grievances, all in violation of the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.12 He seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as an injunction requiring the wearing of masks and the installation of security cameras.13
Federal courts must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity.14 In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous or malicious, or that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.15 All or part of the complaint may be dismissed sua sponte if the prisoner's claims lack an arguable basis in law or fact. This includes claims based on legal conclusions that are untenable, like claims against defendants who are immune from suit or claims of infringement of a legal interest that clearly does not exist, as well as claims based on fanciful factual allegations or fantastic or delusional scenarios.16
Dismissal for failure to state a claim is proper only if it is clear that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of the claim that would entitle him or her to relief.17 In making this determination, the court takes all allegations of material fact as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.18 Allegations of a pro se complainant are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, but the plaintiff must provide more than mere labels and conclusions.19 "While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported with factual allegations."20 "Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief ... [is] a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense."21
Hill alleges that Rhude discriminated against him based on race, religion, and sexual orientation, violating the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The Clause protects prisoners "from invidious discrimination based on race,"22 intentional discrimination based on religion,23 as well as disparate treatment based on sexual orientation.24 To state a colorable equal-protection claim, Hill must allege non-conclusory, non-speculative facts sufficient to show that a particular defendant intentionally discriminated against him because of his membership in a protected class.25 Government-official defendants cannot be held "vicariously liabl[e] for" their subordinates’ conduct under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ; liability attaches "only upon a showing of personal participation by the defendant."26
I find that Hill states a colorable equal-protection claim against Rhude. Hill complains that Rhude said "I hate Gay Black/Jews" while blowing "COVID[-19]" into Hill's cell. Hill therefore alleges facts that might plausibly show that Rhude took that action because Hill is Black, Jewish, and gay. His equal-protection claim against Rhude may proceed.
However, Hill fails to allege an equal-protection claim against Ruiz because he alleges no facts at all to suggest that Ruiz discriminated against him, and Ruiz may not be held vicariously liable for Rhude's conduct. To the extent that Hill invokes the Fourteenth Amendment to allege a due-process claim against Ruiz for denied grievances or violations of state law or prison procedures, he cannot state a colorable claim.27 I therefore dismiss with prejudice any Fourteenth Amendment claim against Ruiz, as amendment would be futile.
B. First Amendment retaliation
To state a viable First Amendment retaliation claim, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to show: "(1) a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner's protected conduct, such action (4) chilled the inmate's exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal."28 Total chilling is not required; it is enough that an official's acts would chill or silence a person of ordinary firmness from future First Amendment activities.29 As with all § 1983 claims, personal participation in the retaliatory conduct, and not merely the existence of a supervisory relationship, is required to hold supervisors liable.30 A person does not become liable for retaliation merely because he or she knows of, is employed with, supervised by, or a supervisor of someone who engages in retaliation.31 Each defendant must be aware of the protected conduct and that conduct must give them a retaliatory motive that causes the chilling adverse conduct; mere speculation is insufficient.32
Timing may sometimes provide some circumstantial evidence of retaliatory intent when adverse conduct takes place shortly after the plaintiff engages in protected conduct.33 But retaliatory intent is not established simply by showing adverse activity after the occurrence of protected speech, rather the plaintiff must allege a "nexus" between the two events.34 The plaintiff must also show the absence of legitimate correctional goals for the conduct of which he complains.35 In addition, retaliation claims brought by prisoners must be evaluated in light of concerns over "excessive judicial involvement in day-to-day prison management, which ‘often squander[s] judicial resources with little offsetting benefit to anyone.’ "36
I find that Hill fails to state colorable retaliation claims against Rhude or Ruiz. Hill alleges that Rhude retaliated against him for filing lawsuits and grievances against the NDOC. But Hill does not allege facts that could be sufficient to show that Rhude was aware of a specific grievance or lawsuit that provided Rhude with a retaliatory motive and caused him to engage in retaliatory adverse conduct. So, I dismiss without prejudice the retaliation claim against Rhude. Similarly, Hill claims that Ruiz retaliated against him for filing grievances against Ruiz's subordinates and lawsuits against the NDOC without alleging any facts that would show any adverse conduct by Ruiz. Although Hill contends that Ruiz was aware that a staff member had not been wearing a mask a few weeks earlier and had vowed to enforce the mask requirement, he does not allege facts sufficient to show that Ruiz knew that Rhude was going to not wear a mask and blow into Hill's cell, let alone facts sufficient to show that Ruiz authorized it and did so in retaliation for Hill's protected conduct. Merely alleging that Hill filed grievances and lawsuits and that something adverse subsequently happened is insufficient to state a claim for retaliation. So, I also dismiss without prejudice the retaliation claim against Ruiz.
If Hill chooses to amend the retaliation claims, for both Rhude and Ruiz, he must allege...
To continue reading
Request your trial