Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01997/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01997-2/pdf.json

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

---

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 

28 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WILLIAM TILLMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-01997-EFB (PC) 

ORDER AND 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 and removed to federal court. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff’s first two complaints were 

dismissed with leave to amend. ECF Nos. 4, 10. Plaintiff has filed a second amended complaint 

(ECF No. 11, “SAC”), which the court screens herein. 

The SAC names four defendants: the State of California and three officers at Mule Creek 

State Prison (“MCSP”): Drake, McNitt, and Nardy. SAC, ¶¶ 5-7. The allegations concerning the 

MCSP defendants are prefaced by allegations largely unrelated to the instant claims. SAC ¶¶ 10-

28. In relevant part, plaintiff alleges that defendant Sgt. Drake raped plaintiff in his cell on 

January 20, 2018 “with unknown other corrections officers assisting[.]” Id., ¶¶ 29-30. 

Plaintiff alleges that he reported the rape to prison authorities, who arranged for him to be 

taken to a hospital for the collection of evidence for a rape kit. Id., ¶ 31. Plaintiff alleges that 

McNitt contacted him to say that he and Drake had attended the Academy together, and asked if 

Case 2:22-cv-01997-DAD-EFB Document 12 Filed 06/18/24 Page 1 of 4
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 

28 

2 

plaintiff was “sure” he wanted to do this, and added: “You know we’re gonna get you for doing 

this.” Id., ¶¶ 32-33. Plaintiff claims that McNitt also “picked which CDCR employees, including 

Nardy,” would drive plaintiff to the hospital for examination. Id., ¶ 34. 

 The SAC alleges that, on the drive to the hospital, Nardy tightened the vehicle restraint 

belts so as to restrict plaintiff’s airway. Additionally, the SAC alleges that Nardy took surface 

streets, rather than the freeway, to the hospital, delaying plaintiff’s arrival by several hours. Id., 

¶¶ 36-38. Hospital staff examined plaintiff and gave the rape kit evidence to Nardy. Id., ¶¶ 39-

40. Plaintiff’s counsel has been unable to obtain any information or records pertaining to the rape 

kit, which they believe was neither handed over to the proper authorities at MSCP nor sent out for 

analysis. Id., ¶¶ 41-42. 

 In Claim 1, plaintiff asserts Eighth Amendment violations by Drake, McNitt, and Nardy. 

Id. at 8-10. A sexual assault on an inmate by a guard—regardless of the gender of the guard or of 

the prisoner—is deeply “offensive to human dignity.” Felix v. McCarthy, 939 F.2d 699, 702 (9th 

Cir. 1991). “Therefore, where uninvited sexual contact is totally without penological 

justification, even though it does not produce serious injury, it results in the gratuitous infliction 

of suffering, which violates contemporary standards of decency and the Eighth Amendment.” 

Meadows v. Reeves, No. 1:11-cv-00257-GBC (PC), 2012 WL 1583023, at *4 (E.D. Cal. May 4, 

2012), citing Calhoun v. Detella, 319 F.3d 936, 939 (7th Cir. 2003). Here, the SAC states 

potentially cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against Drake and Nardy. See id. at *5 (claim 

alleging uninvited sexual contact between a prison official and an inmate, in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment, is similar to an excessive force claim). 

 In Claim 2, plaintiff asserts that Drake, McNitt and Nardy violated his federal due process 

right “to obtain evidence of rape” with respect to the hospital exam and rape kit. To state a claim 

for violation of the right to procedural due process, plaintiff must allege facts showing: “(1) a 

deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest, and (2) a denial of adequate 

procedural protections.” Kildare v. Saenz, 325 F.3d 1078, 1085 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, the SAC 

does not allege that any defendant personally participated in constitutional wrongdoing with 

respect to the rape kit. Though McNitt’s and Nardy’s alleged actions could be construed as 

Case 2:22-cv-01997-DAD-EFB Document 12 Filed 06/18/24 Page 2 of 4
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 

28 

3 

retaliatory under the First Amendment, plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, does not bring 

such a claim, and it is not clear whether any such claim is exhausted.1

In Claim 3, plaintiff seeks damages for violation of the Prison Rape Elimination Act 

(“PREA”). “However, the majority of courts to consider the issue have determined that the 

PREA does not actually provide for a private cause of action.” Debose v. Third Watch 

Commander, 2:23-cv-00131-EFB (PC), 2023 WL 2058818, atb*2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2023) 

(collecting cases), not adopted on other grounds in Debose v. Third Watch Commander, 2023 

WL 5614941 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2023). 

Plaintiff also asserts state tort claims in Claims 4, 5, and 6. This court may exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims provided that they “are so related to claims in 

the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy 

under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Claim 4 for battery 

against Drake is clearly related to the case at issue, as is Claim 6 for intentional infliction of 

emotion distress against Drake and Nardy. On the other hand, Claim 5, alleging failure to 

summon timely medical care, concerns the collection of rape kit evidence and does not relate to 

the federal claims going forward. In sum, state-law Claims 4 and 6 may go forward against 

defendants Drake and Nardy, while state-law Claim 5 is subject to dismissal. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Clerk of Court assign a district judge 

to this action. 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT: 

1. The Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 11) proceed on the Eighth Amendment 

claims and state tort claims for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress, 

as set forth above, against defendants Drake and Nardy; 

1

 As to defendant State of California, the Eleventh Amendment serves as a jurisdictional 

bar to suits brought by private parties against a state or state agency unless the state or the agency 

consents to such suit. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 

(1978)( per curiam); Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1349-50 (9th Cir. 1982). As the State 

of California has not consented to suit, any purported claims against it in the SAC cannot go 

forward. 

Case 2:22-cv-01997-DAD-EFB Document 12 Filed 06/18/24 Page 3 of 4
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 

28 

4 

2. All other claims be dismissed without prejudice to refiling in a separate action or 

actions; 

3. All defendants except the two named above be dismissed from this action; and 

4. If and when these findings and recommendations are adopted by the district judge, 

service of the SAC shall be ordered on defendants Drake and Nardy. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 

(9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: June 17, 2024 

Case 2:22-cv-01997-DAD-EFB Document 12 Filed 06/18/24 Page 4 of 4