Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02442/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02442-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

14-cv-2442-WQH-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL BRIAN DASILVA, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

PADILLA, et al., 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 14-cv-2442-WQH-MDD 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION RE: 

PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS 

PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

[ECF No. 67] 

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to United States 

District Judge William Q. Hayes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and 

Local Civil Rule 72.1(c) of the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of California. 

For the reasons set forth herein, the Court RECOMMENDS

Defendants’ partial motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint 

be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 

I. PREVIOUSLY DISMISSED CLAIMS 

 In the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), Plaintiff realleges the same 

claims dismissed previously by the District Judge on this Court’s 

recommendation. (ECF Nos. 49, 57). The District Judge dismissed claim 

Case 3:14-cv-02442-WQH-MDD Document 75 Filed 07/06/16 Page 1 of 11
2 

14-cv-2442-WQH-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

one in its entirety, parts of claim three, and claims two and four regarding 

Defendant Gervin only. (ECF No. 57 at 3). The dismissal of claims two and 

four regarding Defendant Gervin was based upon Plaintiff’s failure to allege 

that Defendant Gervin’s conduct did not advance a legitimate correctional 

goal. (Id.). 

The SAC adds the allegation that Defendants’ conduct did not advance 

a legitimate correctional goal. (ECF No. 66 at 18 ¶61). The new allegation 

applies to all Defendants but only has meaning in connection with claims two 

and four regarding Defendant Gervin. The significance of the new allegation 

regarding Defendant Gervin will be discussed below. 

Regarding the previously dismissed claims realleged in the SAC, except 

for claims two and four against Defendant Gervin, the Court 

RECOMMENDS that these claims be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on April 28, 2015. 

(ECF No. 35). On May 12, 2015, Defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss 

the FAC for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 37). On October 7, 2015, this 

Court issued a Report and Recommendation recommending Defendants’ 

partial motion to dismiss the FAC be granted. (ECF No. 49). On February 8, 

2016, District Judge William Q. Hayes adopted the Report and 

Recommendation and granted Defendants’ partial motion to dismiss. (ECF 

No. 57). 

In adopting the Report and Recommendation, the district judge 

dismissed Plaintiff’s second and fourth claims against Defendant Gervin 

because Plaintiff failed to allege the fifth element of a retaliatory grievance 

claim. (ECF Nos. 49 at 16, 57 at 3). More specifically, Plaintiff failed to 

Case 3:14-cv-02442-WQH-MDD Document 75 Filed 07/06/16 Page 2 of 11
3 

14-cv-2442-WQH-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

allege that Defendant Gervin’s conduct did not advance a legitimate 

correctional goal. (Id.). 

The SAC realleges all claims in the FAC and is identical to the FAC 

with one difference. (ECF Nos. 35, 66). The difference is Plaintiff addresses 

his prior defect by adding an additional paragraph stating that Defendants’ 

actions “did not reasonably advance any legitimate correctional goals.” (ECF 

No. 66 at 18 ¶61). The paragraph applies to all Defendants but is designed to 

address the defect with respect to Defendant Gervin in the second and fourth 

claims. 

Defendants raise all of the same challenges in this partial motion to 

dismiss the SAC that they raised in the partial motion to dismiss the FAC. 

(ECF Nos. 26, 67). The only new issues are whether Plaintiff sufficiently pled 

that Defendant Gervin’s actions did not reasonably advance any legitimate 

correctional goals and whether Plaintiff sufficiently alleged facts to 

demonstrate Plaintiff engaged in protected conduct. 

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS 

A. Background Facts 

All facts are taken from the SAC and are not to be construed as findings 

by the Court. 

On March 12, 2013, while Plaintiff was incarcerated at Centinela State 

Prison, Defendant Lieutenant Gervin interviewed Plaintiff regarding a Form 

602 Appeal (“grievance”). (ECF No. 66 at 5 ¶ 1). Plaintiff alleges Gervin was 

“extremely abrasive, hostile, and derogatory.” (Id.). Plaintiff claims Gervin 

belittled him. (Id. ¶ 2). Plaintiff said “whatever dude,” to which Gervin 

responded “aren’t you a disrespectful little bitch.” (Id.). A verbal altercation 

followed and the interview was terminated. (Id.). 

Case 3:14-cv-02442-WQH-MDD Document 75 Filed 07/06/16 Page 3 of 11
4 

14-cv-2442-WQH-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Plaintiff met with Defendant Assistant Warden Calderon after the 

incident and reported Gervin’s behavior. (Id. ¶ 3). Calderon expressed 

concern about Gervin’s behavior and told Plaintiff he would handle the 

matter. (Id. ¶ 4). On March 18, 2013, Plaintiff received notice Gervin 

cancelled Plaintiff’s grievance. (Id. ¶ 5). Plaintiff alleges the cancellation 

notice states Gervin cancelled his grievance because of Plaintiff’s behavior 

during the interview. (Id.). Plaintiff claims Gervin also filed a false report 

against him. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges Gervin took these actions “to dissuade 

Plaintiff from further using the grievance process.” (Id. at 13 ¶ 40). 

Plaintiff spoke with Calderon two more times regarding Gervin’s 

conduct. (Id. at 5-6 ¶ 6). Additionally, Plaintiff filed a Form 22 Request for 

Interview (“Form 22”) and another grievance. (Id.). 

IV. LEGAL STANDARD 

 “A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests the legal sufficiency of a claim.” Navarro 

v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). “Under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009) (internal quotations omitted). The pleader must 

provide the Court with “more than an un-adorned, the-defendant-unlawfullyharmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of 

a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements will not suffice.” 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “Although for the purposes of a motion to dismiss [a 

court] must take all of the factual allegations in the complaint as true, [a 

court is] not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual 

allegation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (internal quotations omitted). 

Case 3:14-cv-02442-WQH-MDD Document 75 Filed 07/06/16 Page 4 of 11
5 

14-cv-2442-WQH-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a pro se pleading is 

construed liberally. Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002) 

(citing Ortez v. Washington Cnty., 88 F.3d 804, 807 (9th Cir. 1996)). The pro 

se pleader must still set out facts in his complaint that bring his claims 

“across the line from conceivable to plausible.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. A 

court “may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially 

pled.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 

V. DISCUSSION 

A. Claim Two: Right to Petition the Government for 

Redress of Grievances and Claim Four: Retaliation

In his second and fourth causes of action, Plaintiff alleges Defendant 

Gervin engaged in retaliatory conduct and interfered with his right to 

petition for redress of grievances. (ECF No. 66 at 13 ¶ 40, 18 ¶ 59). Plaintiff 

alleges Gervin filed a false report about Plaintiff and verbally abused him 

during an interview. (Id. at 18 ¶ 59). Plaintiff alleges Gervin’s retaliatory 

conduct was designed to dissuade Plaintiff from using the grievance process. 

(Id. at 13 ¶ 40). 

Defendants challenge Plaintiff’s second and fourth claims only as to the 

allegations of retaliatory conduct against Defendant Gervin. (ECF No. 67 at 

10-15). Defendants do not challenge Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants 

Calderon, Dominguez, Erece, Greenwood, Miller, Padilla, Rivas and Sais for 

retaliatory conduct arising from the destruction of his property, prison 

transfer, withholding mail or interfering with the prison grievance process. 

(Id.).

Defendants argue Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Gervin for 

retaliation and redress of grievances because Plaintiff failed to sufficiently 

Case 3:14-cv-02442-WQH-MDD Document 75 Filed 07/06/16 Page 5 of 11
6 

14-cv-2442-WQH-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

allege he was engaged in protected conduct giving rise to a retaliation claim 

and that Gervin did not have a legitimate correctional goal. (Id. at 10, 15). 

1. Plaintiff Pled Sufficient Facts to Establish Gervin’s Actions 

Did Not Reasonably Advance a Legitimate Correctional Goal 

Plaintiff sufficiently pled Defendant Gervin’s actions did not reasonably 

advance a legitimate correctional goal by alleging that, after Plaintiff filed a 

grievance and attempted to appeal it, Gervin made a false report about 

Plaintiff in retaliation for Plaintiff filing a grievance without reasonably 

advancing any legitimate correctional goal. (ECF No. 66). 

A plaintiff must plead five elements to state a claim for retaliation 

under § 1983: 

(1) a state actor took an adverse action against him (2) 

because of (3) the prisoner’s protected conduct, and that the 

action taken against him (4) chilled the prisoner’s exercise of 

his First Amendment Rights and (5) did not reasonably 

advance a legitimate correctional goal. 

Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1104 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Rhodes, 408 

F.3d at 567). 

There is no dispute that Plaintiff adequately alleges Gervin is a state 

actor, that Gervin took adverse action against Plaintiff, and that Gervin did 

so to dissuade Plaintiff from exercising his First Amendment rights. (ECF 

No. 35 at 5 ¶¶ 1, 5; 13 ¶ 40; 18 ¶ 60). The issue is whether Plaintiff 

adequately pled that Gervin’s actions “did not reasonably advance a 

legitimate correctional goal.” 

To successfully plead Defendants’ actions did not reasonably advance a 

legitimate correctional goal, the Plaintiff must “allege that the prison 

authorities’ retaliatory action did not advance legitimate goals of the 

correctional institution or was not tailored narrowly enough to achieve such 

Case 3:14-cv-02442-WQH-MDD Document 75 Filed 07/06/16 Page 6 of 11
7 

14-cv-2442-WQH-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

goals.” Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532 (1985). Basic factual allegations 

coupled with allegations that a Defendant’s actions were “retaliatory and 

arbitrary and capricious” are sufficient to allege the retaliatory acts were not 

a reasonable exercise of prison authority and did not serve any legitimate 

correctional goal. Rizzo, 778 F.2d at 532 n.4 (plaintiff sufficiently pled lack of 

legitimate correctional goal by alleging a prison official acted in a retaliatory 

and capricious manner when they recommended the plaintiff be reassigned 

on the basis of too many library passes). A conclusory allegation that the 

retaliation is arbitrary, unsupported by any facts, would be insufficient. See 

id. But when the same conclusory allegation is coupled with some factual 

details the pleading is sufficient. See id. 

In this case, Plaintiff pled some supporting facts by alleging Gervin 

filed a false complaint and verbally assaulted Plaintiff to retaliate against 

Plaintiff for using the grievance process. (ECF No. 66). 

Defendants correctly argue that mere verbal abuse by Gervin does not 

constitute retaliatory action against Plaintiff. (EFC No. 67 at 11-13); Keenan 

v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996); see Ayotte v. Barnhart, 973 F. 

Supp. 2d 70, 94 (D. Me. 2013). The Ninth Circuit has held, however, that 

allegations of prison officials filing a false complaint about a prisoner and 

making false statements to a disciplinary board, are sufficient to sustain a 

retaliation claim. See Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1115 (9th Cir. 2012). 

In Watison, the plaintiff sufficiently alleged “the absence of a legitimate 

penological reason for the alleged adverse actions: Watison pleaded arbitrary, 

capricious, and retaliatory conduct in pleading that (a) [defendant] filed a 

false disciplinary complaint against him and (b) [defendant] made false

statements to the parole board, both in retaliation for filing grievances 

[plaintiff] had filed against [defendant].” Id. Here, as in Watison, the alleged 

Case 3:14-cv-02442-WQH-MDD Document 75 Filed 07/06/16 Page 7 of 11
8 

14-cv-2442-WQH-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

false complaint is sufficient, even though the allegations of verbal abuse 

would be insufficient on their own. (ECF No. 66 at 13 ¶ 40 and 18 ¶ 59). 

Plaintiff sufficiently pled the fifth element of a retaliation claim. 

The Ninth Circuit has also held that a conclusory allegation paired with 

a chronology showing retaliation is sufficient to state a claim. See Tomel v. 

Hawaii, 570 F. App'x 717, 719 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Watison, 668 F.3d at 

1115) (finding similar chronology of events sufficient). Here, the chronology 

of the alleged events demonstrates that Plaintiff filed a grievance, and then 

an official filed a false report against him and verbally harassed him. (ECF 

No. 66). These allegations are sufficient to plead the causal connection 

between Plaintiff’s grievance and Gervin’s conduct to support the allegation 

that Gervin’s conduct lacked a legitimate penological interest. Plaintiff’s new 

allegation, considered in context with his original allegations, satisfies the 

fifth element because a causal connection was demonstrated and Plaintiff 

asserted a lack of penological interest. 

Plaintiff pled sufficient facts to support a retaliation claim as required 

to sustain the second and fourth claims against Defendant Gervin. 

2. Protected Conduct 

The Court now turns to whether Plaintiff sufficiently pled facts to 

establish his conduct was protected. 

Plaintiff pled sufficient facts to establish he was engaged in protected 

conduct because prisoners retain the right to file prison grievances and 

pursue civil rights litigation. Rhodes v. Robinson, 380 F.3d 1123, 1130 (9th 

Cir. 2004) amended on other grounds by Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 

(9th Cir. 2005) (reh’g denied). “In the First Amendment context . . . a 

prisoner retains those First Amendment rights that are not inconsistent with 

his status as a prisoner or with the legitimate penological interests of the 

Case 3:14-cv-02442-WQH-MDD Document 75 Filed 07/06/16 Page 8 of 11
9 

14-cv-2442-WQH-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

corrections system.” Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822 (1974). “Deliberate 

retaliation by state actors against an individual’s exercise of this right is 

actionable under section 1983.” Soranno’s Gasco v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310, 

1314 (9th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Gervin deliberately 

retaliated against him for exercising his right to file prison grievances. (ECF 

66 at 18 ¶ 9). 

The right to petition the government for redress of grievances is 

constitutionally protected conduct. See Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 

1101-02 (9th Cir. 2011); Snyder v. Nolen, 380 F.3d 279, 290 (7th Cir. 2004). 

“Under the First Amendment, a prisoner has both a right to meaningful 

access to the courts and a broader right to petition the government for a 

redress of his grievances.” Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1102 (9th Cir. 

2011). The right to petition the government for redress of grievances 

includes, but is not limited to, an inmate’s right to be free from retaliation for 

filing grievances. See Gleason v. Villamarin, No. CV 14-00087-CBM DFM, 

2014 WL 658388, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2014); see also Baltoski v. 

Pretorius, 291 F. Supp. 2d 807, 811 (N.D. Ind. 2003); Hines v. Gomez, 853 F. 

Supp. 329, 331 (N.D. Cal. 1994). 

Because Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Gervin retaliated against him 

and interfered with his ability to petition the government for redress of his 

grievances, Plaintiff sufficiently pled protected conduct in his second and 

fourth claims against Gervin. (ECF 66 at 13 ¶ 40). 

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS Defendant’s motion to dismiss 

the second and fourth claims against Gervin be DENIED. 

VI. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the 

District Court issue an Order: (1) Approving and Adopting this Report and 

Case 3:14-cv-02442-WQH-MDD Document 75 Filed 07/06/16 Page 9 of 11
10 

14-cv-2442-WQH-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Recommendation; (2) DENYING Defendants’ partial motion to dismiss with 

respect to Plaintiff’s second and fourth claims against Defendant Gervin for 

retaliation arising out of the interview; and (3) GRANTING Defendant’s 

partial motion to dismiss for the following re-alleged claims: 

• Plaintiff’s first claim for access to courts as to all Defendants; and 

• Plaintiff’s third claim for violation of Due Process against 

Defendants Calderon, Dominguez, Padilla, Miller, and Sais arising from 

destruction of Plaintiff’s property, denial of Plaintiff’s property claim, and the 

transfer of Plaintiff to another prison. This Court further RECOMMENDS

that these re-alleged claims be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

If the Court’s recommendations are adopted, the following claims 

remain PENDING: 

• Plaintiff’s second claim for denial of the right to petition the 

government for redress of grievances against Defendants 

Calderon, Dominguez, Gervin, Greenwood, Miller, Padilla, Rivas and 

Sais arising from interference with the prison grievance process; 

• Plaintiff’s third claim for violation of Due Process against 

Defendants Erece, Greenwood, John Doe, Padilla, Rivas, Ruiz, and Sais 

arising from failing to notify superiors of Plaintiff’s grievances, refusing 

Plaintiff law library access, and the withholding of Plaintiff’s legal mail; 

• Plaintiff’s fourth claim for retaliation against Defendants Calderon, 

Dominguez, Erece, Gervin, Greenwood, John Doe, Miller, Padilla, Rivas, 

and Sais arising from the deprivation of Plaintiff’s property, transfer to 

Tehachapi State Prison, withholding Plaintiff’s legal mail, and filing 

false allegations and reports against Plaintiff; and 

• Plaintiff’s fifth claim alleging related state law claims. 

Case 3:14-cv-02442-WQH-MDD Document 75 Filed 07/06/16 Page 10 of 11
11 

14-cv-2442-WQH-MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any written objections to this Report 

must be filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than July 20, 

2016. The document should be captioned “Objections to Report and 

Recommendation.” 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objection shall be 

filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than July 27, 2016. 

The parties are advised that the failure to file objections within the specified 

time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the Court’s 

order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 6, 2016 

Case 3:14-cv-02442-WQH-MDD Document 75 Filed 07/06/16 Page 11 of 11