Ehly v. Navarro
Filing
7
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT and Granting Plaintiff Leave to File an Amended Complaint Within Thirty (30) Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 11/21/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint Form). (Jessen, A)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
2
3
4
5
6
7
WILLIAM EHLY,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
Case No. 1:13 cv 01195 GSA PC
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND
GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE
AN AMENDED COMPLAINT
vs.
J. NAVARRO,
Defendant
11
AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE
IN THIRTY DAYS
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
I.
Screening Requirement
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to proceed before a magistrate
judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).1
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
19
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
20
The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are
21
legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
22
that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
23
§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been
24
paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or
25
26
27
1
28
Plaintiff filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate judge on September 9, 2013 (ECF No. 6).
1
1
2
appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
3
“Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited
4
exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534
5
U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a
6
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R.
7
Civ. P. 8(a). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s
8
claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. However, “the
9
liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams,
10
490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not
11
supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union
12
Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268
13
(9th Cir. 1982)).
14
II.
15
Plaintiff’s Claim
Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and
16
Rehabilitation (CDCR) at Pleasant Valley State Prison, brings this civil rights action against
17
Defendant J. Navarro, a Correctional Counselor employed by the CDCR at Pleasant Valley.
18
Plaintiff claims that Defendant impeded his access to the courts in violation of the First
19
Amendment.
20
Plaintiff alleges that on December 13, 2012, the day before a scheduled telephone
21
conference with a court, Plaintiff received and inmate pass to the Counselor’s office in his
22
housing unit for the scheduled court call. The next day, Plaintiff arrived approximately 20
23
minutes before the scheduled call. Defendant Navarro directed Plaintiff to sit at a table outside
24
the office. Plaintiff waited approximately one hour before Navarro called him into the office to
25
place the call on Plaintiff’s behalf.
26
Once Navarro placed the call, the court informed Plaintiff that he was late, and dismissed
27
his case as a sanction. Plaintiff alleges that Navarro intentionally waited until forty minutes past
28
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
the scheduled time to make the call. Plaintiff also alleges that Navarro falsely indicated in a
handwritten memorandum that Plaintiff was notified twenty minutes before the hearing, but did
not appear until twenty minutes after the hearing.
A.
Access to Courts
Because states must ensure indigent prisoners meaningful access to the courts, prison
officials are required to provide either (1) adequate law libraries, or (2) adequate assistance from
persons trained in the law. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977). Under prior law,
Bounds was treated as establishing “core requirements,” such that a prisoner alleging deprivation
of the Bounds minima need not allege actual injury to a state constitutional claim. Sands v.
Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1171 (9th Cir. 1989). Recent Supreme Court precedent abolishes such
approach, however, providing that all inmate claims for interference with access to the court
include “actual injury” as an element. Casey v. Lewis, 518 U.S. 343 (1996).
13
To establish a Bounds violation, prisoner must show that his prison’s law library or legal
14
assistance program frustrated or impeded his ability to pursue a nonfrivolous legal claim. Casey,
15
supra, 518 U.S. 343, 347. The right of access does not require the State to “enable the prisoner
16
to discover grievances” or to “litigate effectively once in court.” The Casey court further limits
17
the right of access to the courts, as follows:
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Finally, we must observe that the injury requirement is not
satisfied by just any type of frustrated legal claim . . . Bounds does
not guarantee inmates the wherewithal to transform themselves
into litigating engines capable of filing everything from
shareholder derivative actions to slip-and-fall claims. The tools it
requires to be provided are those that the inmates need in order to
attack their sentences, directly or collaterally, and in order to
challenge the conditions of their confinement. Impairment of any
other litigating capacity is simply one of the incidental (and
perfectly constitutional) consequences of conviction and
incarceration.
Casey, 518 U.S. at 346.
Although Plaintiff clearly alleges that the conduct of Defendant Navarro impeded his
access to the courts, he does not specify the nature of the action that he was litigating. Plaintiff
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
refers to state court action regarding the loss of personal property. Plaintiff does not specifically
allege what his civil action was about, or whether it directly challenged the conditions of his
confinement. The complaint should therefore be dismissed. Plaintiff will, however, be granted
leave to file an amended complaint.
III.
Conclusion and Order
The Court has screened Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it does not state any claims
Upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the
opportunity to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this
order. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff is cautioned that he
may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended
complaint. George, 507 F.3d at 607 (no “buckshot” complaints).
Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what
13
each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal
14
rights, Hydrick, 500 F.3d at 987-88. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must
15
be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
16
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554 (2007) (citations omitted).
17
Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint,
18
Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565,
19
567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded
20
pleading,” Local Rule 15-220. Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an
21
original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d
22
at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord
23
Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.
24
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
25
1.
26
27
28
Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a
claim;
2.
The Clerk’s Office shall send to Plaintiff a complaint form;
4
1
3.
2
3
an amended complaint;
4.
4
7
Plaintiff may not add any new, unrelated claims to this action via his amended
complaint and any attempt to do so will result in an order striking the amended
5
6
Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file
complaint; and
5.
If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, the Court will dismiss this action,
with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
Dated:
11
/s/ Gary S. Austin
12
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
November 21, 2014
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?