Greene v. Grannis

Filing 3

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending to dismiss action re 1 Complaint filed by Cedric Greene, signed by Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 06/06/2006. Motion referred to Judge Wanger. Filing due by 7/10/2006. (Martin, S)

(PC) Greene v. Grannis

Doc. 3

Case 1:06-cv-00659-OWW-SMS

Document 3

Filed 06/07/2006

Page 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 N. GRANNIS, 13 Defendants. 14 15 Cedric Greene ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 16 filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant action on May 30, 2006, naming N. 17 Grannis, Inmate Appeals Coordinator as the sole Defendant. 18 A. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 19 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 20 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 21 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 22 "frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 23 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 24 "Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall 25 dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a 26 claim upon which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 27 A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 28 1
Dockets.Justia.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EAS TER N DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CEDRIC GREENE, Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION (Doc. 1.) CV F 06 659 OWW SMS P

/

Case 1:06-cv-00659-OWW-SMS

Document 3

Filed 06/07/2006

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

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v. Roos evelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). B. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has "falsified a legal document" concerning an inmate appeal. Specifically, Plaintiff states that he sent correspondence to receive the status on an institutional appeal and that the Defendant issued a response. Plaintiff states that he "never sent or mailed the stipulated appeal to the Defendant and thus, the Defendant has falsified a legal document." (Complaint at 3.) Plaintiff states that this is a violation of state law and seeks 2 million dollars as compensatory damages. C. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF In this case, it appears that Plaintiff believes that Defendant's response is stating that Defendant forwarded Plaintiff's appeal to the inmate appeals coordinator at his location. However, according to the attached documentation, the letter is clear that the written inquiry (i.e. Plaintiff's letter) was forwarded to the inmate appeals coordinator at the institution, not an actual appeal. In any event, Plaintiff's allegations concerning the falsification of documents do not give rise to a federal constitutional violation cognizable under section 1983. To the extent that Plaintiff's allegations concern the propriety of his inmate appeals, this too fails to state a claim for relief as there no constitutional right to an inmate appeals process. The Ninth Circuit has held that Prisoners do not have a "separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure." Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir.2003), citing Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.1988). The non-existence of, or the failure of prison officials to properly implement, an administrative appeals process within the prison 2

Case 1:06-cv-00659-OWW-SMS

Document 3

Filed 06/07/2006

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

system does not raise constitutional concerns. Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.1988). See also, Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir.1993); Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728 (8th Cir.1991); Azeez v. DeRobertis, 568 F.Supp. 8, 10 (N.D.Ill.1982) ("[A prison] grievance procedure is a procedural right only, it does not confer any substantive right upon the inmates. Hence, it does not give rise to a protected liberty interest requiring the procedural protections envisioned by the fourteenth amendment"). A failure to process a grievance does not state a constitutional violation. Buckley, supra. State regulations give rise to a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the federal constitution only if those regulations pertain to "freedom from restraint" that "imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life." Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 2300 (1995). Accordingly, Plaintiff's allegations do not give rise to cognizable claim for relief under Section 1983. 2. State Law Violation To the extent Plaintiff is alleging that the falsehood of the letter violates state law, as Plaintiff has not alleged a federal constitutional cause of action, this Court cannot maintain supplemental jurisdiction over any perceived violations of state law alleged in this action. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), in any civil action in which the district court has original jurisdiction, the district court "shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III," except as provided in subsections (b) and (c). "[O]nce judicial power exists under § 1367(a), retention of supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims under 1367(c) is discretionary." Acri v. Varian Assoc., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997). "The district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Supreme Court has cautioned that "if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, . . . the state claims should be dismissed as well." United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). 3

Case 1:06-cv-00659-OWW-SMS

Document 3

Filed 06/07/2006

Page 4 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

In light of the above, Plaintiff's alleged state law violations must also be dismissed. D. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief under section 1983. Further, the Court finds that the deficiencies outlined above are not capable of being cured by amendment, and therefore leave to amend should not be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed in its entirety for Plaintiff's FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM upon which relief can be granted. It is HEREBY ORDERED that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted to the United States District Court Judge assigned to the case pursuant to the provision of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within THIRTY (30) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Replies to the Objections shall be served and filed within TEN (10) court days (plus three (3) days if served by mail) after service of the Objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge's ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: icido3 June 6, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4