Pearson v. Pehrson, et al.

Filing 12

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT Without Prejudice signed by Chief Judge Ralph R. Beistline on 5/13/2013. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
GARY LEE PEARSON,
Case No. 1:12-cv-01401-RRB
Plaintiff,
vs.

DISMISSAL ORDER

JAY PEHRSON, et al.,
Defendants.

Plaintiff Gary Lee Pearson, a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis,
filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1942.1 Pearson is incarcerated at the California
State Prison, Corcoran.
I.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT
This Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against

a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.2 This Court must
dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally
“frivolous or malicious,” that “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that

1

In addition to Pehrson, Pearson names as Defendants Richard Rosenthal,
Tamme Campbell, Eric Henry, Connie Gipson, Mary Kimbrell, and Javier Cavazos.
2

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

DISMISSAL ORDER
Pearson v. Pehrson, et al, 1:12-cv-01401-RRB – 1

“seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.”3 Likewise, a
prisoner must exhaust all administrative remedies as may be available,4 irrespective of
whether those administrative remedies provide for monetary relief.5
In determining whether a complaint states a claim, the Court looks to the pleading
standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Under Rule 8(a), a complaint must
contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.”6 “[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual
allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation.”7 Failure to state a claim under § 1915A incorporates the familiar standard
applied in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), including the rule that complaints filed
by pro se prisoners are to be liberally construed, affording the prisoner the benefit of any
doubt, and dismissal should be granted only where it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff
can plead no facts in support of his claim that would entitle him or her to relief.8

3

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c); see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d
1122, 1126 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
4

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); see Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93–95 (2006)
(“proper exhaustion” under § 1997e(a) is mandatory and requires proper adherence to
administrative procedural rules).
5

See Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 734 (2001).

6

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

7

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555 (2007)).
8

Wilhelm v. Rotham, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012).

DISMISSAL ORDER
Pearson v. Pehrson, et al, 1:12-cv-01401-RRB – 2

This requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim
for relief.9 “[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s
liability . . . ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to
relief.’” 1 0 Further, although a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in
a complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff’s legal conclusions as true.11 “Threadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.”12
II.

GRAVAMEN OF COMPLAINT
Another inmate, Anthony Johnson, filed a civil rights complaint, Pearson v. Clark,

1:12-cv-00465, forging Pearson’s name to the Complaint.13 At the request of Pearson, that
action was voluntarily dismissed. Pearson then embarked upon an unsuccessful Quixotic
quest seeking to have the prison officials investigate and discipline the inmate who filed the
forged complaint. Pearson asserts that, collectively or individually, the Defendants : (1)
improperly allowed Johnson to file the forged complaint; (2) denied his attempts to redress
his grievances vis-a-vis the false complaint filed by Johnson on fictitious bases; and (3) lost

9

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678–69; see Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969
(9th Cir. 2009) (quoting and applying Iqbal and Twombly).
10

Iqbal 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).

11

Id.

12

Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

13

This Court takes judicial notice of that action. Fed. R. Evid. 201.

DISMISSAL ORDER
Pearson v. Pehrson, et al, 1:12-cv-01401-RRB – 3

or otherwise interfered with the processing of a CDC 602 Inmate Appeals Form concerning
a medical claim as a prerequisite to filing a civil rights action.
Pearson asserts three claims in that Defendants: (1) knowingly and wilfully failed to
prevent the filing of the false complaint; (2) deprived him due process; and (3) conspired to
obstruct justice and deprive him of access to the courts. Pearson seeks a declaration that the
Defendants violated his civil rights, injunctive relief compelling a new investigation,
compensatory and punitive damages.
III.

DISCUSSION
To the extent that Pearson is challenging the failure of prison officials to discipline

Johnson, there is no authority to support a determination that failure somehow violates a
constitutional right. Put another way, there is no authority for the proposition that a prison
inmate has any constitutionally protected interest cognizable under § 1983 to force prison
official to discipline another inmate.
The claim that prison officials failed to properly process his internal grievances vis-avis his claim that he is being denied proper medical care stands on somewhat different
footing. The right of access to the courts is a well established fundamental constitutional
right.14

It is, however, also well established that there must be some injury and that

requirement is not satisfied by just any type of frustrated legal claim.15 Although it is not

14

Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821, 828 (1977).

15

Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996).

DISMISSAL ORDER
Pearson v. Pehrson, et al, 1:12-cv-01401-RRB – 4

entirely clear from the Complaint, Pearson appears to fear that the actions of the prison
officials in allegedly improperly processing his medical claim grievances will somehow
preclude him from filing a civil rights complaint to redress an Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference claim against whomever may otherwise be responsible. The appropriate remedy
in this case is to respond to any contention that Pearson has failed to properly exhaust his
administrative remedies in any future action may bring seeking relief on that basis.16 At this
point, because any claim that the acts of the Defendants, or any of them, will interfere with
Pearson’s ability to seek appropriate judicial redress for his medical problems is entirely
speculative, i.e., Pearson has not shown any harm.17
IV.

ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT the Complaint is hereby DISMISSED,

without prejudice to Pearson raising the issues concerning the processing of his internal
grievances alleging a denial of proper medical care as excusing exhaustion of administrative
remedies in any action he may bring against the appropriate officials.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of May, 2013.
S/RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16

The records of this Court do not indicate that Pearson has brought any such

17

See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–561 (1992).

action.

DISMISSAL ORDER
Pearson v. Pehrson, et al, 1:12-cv-01401-RRB – 5