Kinnamon v. Lopez et al

Filing 14

SECOND SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING CASE with prejudice, for failure to state a claim (Strike); signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 04/03/2013. CASE CLOSED(Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8

TODD KINNAMON,

9

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01155-SKO PC
Plaintiff,

10

v.

11

SECOND SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING
ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE
TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER SECTION 1983

V. LOPEZ, et al.,

12

(Doc. 13)
Defendants.

ORDER THAT DISMISSAL IS SUBJECT TO
THREE STRIKES PROVISION UNDER
28 U.S.C. § 1915(G)

13
/
14
15
16

Second Screening Order Dismissing Action
I.

Screening Requirement and Standard

17

Plaintiff Todd Kinnamon, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

18

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 16, 2012. On March 13, 2013, the Court

19

dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to state any claims under section

20

1983. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 1, 2013.

21

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

22

governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

23

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

24

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

25

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).

26

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

27

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

28

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
1

1

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader

2

is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but

3

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,

4

do not suffice,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic

5

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and courts “are not required to

6

indulge unwarranted inferences,” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009)

7

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal

8

conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

9

Pro se litigants are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt

10

resolved in their favor, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121-23 (9th Cir. 2012); Hebbe v. Pliler,

11

627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010), but Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible to survive

12

screening, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each

13

named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks

14

omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that

15

a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of

16

satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572

17

F.3d at 969.

18

II.

Claim for Denial of Access to the Courts

19

Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San

20

Diego, brings this action against Correctional Officer Velia Lopez and Lab Library Technician James

21

Guzman for violating his right of access to the courts when he was at California State Prison-

22

Corcoran.

23

Plaintiff, a priority law library user who knows little about the civil law, alleges that because

24

he had no access to the law library, he was unable to defend and litigate his case and it was

25

dismissed. (Amend. Comp., § IV.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Lopez and Guzman are

26

responsible for the violation of his rights through their unprofessional negligence, and Plaintiff refers

27

to “a Board of Control complaint followed by the complaint.” (Id.)

28

///
2

1

Inmates have a fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts, Lewis v. Casey, 518

2

U.S. 343, 346, 116 S.Ct. 2174 (1996); Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir. 2011);

3

Phillips v. Hust, 588 F.3d 652, 655 (9th Cir. 2009), and prison officials may not actively interfere

4

with an inmate’s right to litigate, Silva, 658 F.3d at 1101-02. However, to state a viable claim for

5

relief, Plaintiff must show that he suffered an actual injury, which requires “actual prejudice to

6

contemplated or existing litigation.” Nevada Dep’t of Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th

7

Cir. 2011) (citing Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct.

8

1823 (2012); Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415, 122 S.Ct. 2179 (2002); Lewis, 518 U.S.

9

at 351; Phillips, 588 F.3d at 655.

10

Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations are insufficient to support a claim that Defendants Lopez

11

and Guzman were the proximate cause of an actual injury to his court case.1 It is unclear why

12

Plaintiff’s court case was dismissed and how Defendants were responsible for the dismissal.

13

Plaintiff does not have a right to litigate effectively once in court and therefore, his inability to access

14

to the library to conduct research does not, alone, rise to the level of a constitutional violation.

15

Lewis, 518 U.S. at 354.

16

III.

Conclusion and Order

17

Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under

18

section 1983. Plaintiff was previously provided with notice of the deficiencies in his claim and given

19

leave to amend, and based on the deficiencies at issue in his amended complaint, further leave to

20

amend is not warranted. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. Smith,

21

203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987).

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27
1

28

In his original complaint, Plaintiff identified the case as being litigated in state court. (Doc. 1, Comp., §

IV.)

3

1

Accordingly, this action is HEREBY ORDERED DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure

2

to state a claim under section1983 and this dismissal is subject to the “three-strikes” provision set

3

forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Silva, 658 F.3d at 1098-99.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated:
ie14hj

April 3, 2013

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4