Johnson v. Morgan et al
Filing
14
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 11/2/2016 recommending dismissal for failure to state a claim re 13 . Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Objections to F&R due within 20-Days. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
VANCE EDWARD JOHNSON,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
J. MORGAN AND J. VIERRA,
15
Defendants.
16
1:15-CV-00883-LJO-EPG-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
(ECF No. 13.)
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
TWENTY DAYS
17
Plaintiff Vance Edward Johnson (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint
commencing this action on June 11, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) The Court screened the complaint on
September 6, 2016, and dismissed the claims with leave to file a First Amended Complaint.
(ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on October 11, 2016. (ECF No. 13.)
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant J. Morgan, Appeals Coordinator of Pleasant Valley State Prison
(PVSP), and J. Vierra, Analysis at PVSP wrongfully obstruct, circumvent, and interfere with
Johnson’s 602 Inmate Appeals process. (Id.)
This Court has screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and finds that it fails to
26
27
28
state a claim as to any defendants.
\\\
1
1
I.
SCREENING REQUIREMENT
2
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
3
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A(a).
4
The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are
5
legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
6
that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
7
' 1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been
8
paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action or
9
appeal fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
10
A complaint is required to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing
11
that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are
12
not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
13
conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell
14
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are
15
taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart
16
Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
17
Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that
18
is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. While factual allegations are accepted as true,
19
legal conclusions are not. Id.
20
To state a viable claim for relief, Plaintiff must set forth sufficient factual allegations to
21
state a plausible claim for relief. Id. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969
22
(9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility
23
standard. Id.
24
25
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Legal Standards
26
Section 1983 provides a cause of action against any person who, under color of state
27
law, “subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation
28
of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “A
2
1
person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of
2
section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts, or omits to
3
perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint
4
is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). “In a § 1983 action, the
5
plaintiff must also demonstrate that the defendant’s conduct was the actionable cause of the
6
claimed injury. To meet this causation requirement, the plaintiff must establish both causation-
7
in-fact and proximate causation.” Harper v. City of L.A., 533 F.3d 1010, 1026 (9th Cir. 2008)
8
(internal citations omitted). Proximate cause requires “‘some direct relation between the injury
9
asserted and the injurious conduct alleged.”’ Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York, 559 U.S.
10
1, 130 (2010) (quoting Holmes v. Secs. Investor Prot. Corp., 503 U.S. 258, 268 (1992)).
11
Prisoners have a right under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to litigate claims
12
challenging their sentences or the conditions of their confinement without direct interference
13
from prison officials. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996); Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d
14
1090, 1103 (9th Cir. 2011); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 824–25 (1977). However, the right
15
of access is merely the right to bring to court a grievance the inmate wishes to present, and is
16
limited to direct criminal appeals, habeas petitions, and civil rights actions. Lewis, 518 U.S. at
17
354. To claim a violation of this right, a plaintiff must show that he has suffered an actual
18
injury as a result of the alleged interference. Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002);
19
Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351. In other words, he must be able to show that the deprivation has
20
directly impacted the relevant litigation in a manner adverse to him. Id. at 348 (defining “actual
21
injury” as “actual prejudice with respect to contemplated or existing litigation, such as the
22
inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a claim”).
23
Defendants’ actions in responding to Plaintiff’s appeals, alone, cannot give rise to any
24
claims for relief under section 1983 for violation of due process. “[A prison] grievance
25
procedure is a procedural right only, it does not confer any substantive right upon the inmates.”
26
Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993) (citing Azeez v. DeRobertis, 568 F.
27
Supp. 8, 10 (N.D. Ill. 1982)); see also Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (no
28
liberty interest in processing of appeals because no entitlement to a specific grievance
3
1
procedure); Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001) (existence of grievance
2
procedure confers no liberty interest on prisoner); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.
3
1988). “Hence, it does not give rise to a protected liberty interest requiring the procedural
4
protections envisioned by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Azeez, 568 F. Supp. at 10; Spencer v.
5
Moore, 638 F. Supp. 315, 316 (E.D. Mo. 1986).
6
B.
Analysis of Plaintiff’s Claims in Light of Legal Standards
7
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint describes his interactions with the two named
8
Defendants for a time period beginning in November of 2013 and ending in June of 2015.
9
(ECF No. 13, pp. 5-6.)
Defendants wrongfully instructed Plaintiff to remove supporting
10
documentation from his appeals. They threatened to place Plaintiff on appeal restriction for
11
misusing and abusing the appeal process. They hindered the appeals process and/or fail to
12
inform Plaintiff as to the status of certain pending appeals.
13
14
The First Amended Complaint does not describe the underlying merits of any of the 602
appeals, besides a reference to an appliance issue.
15
Similarly to the original complaint, Plaintiff has not shown in his amended complaint
16
that any of the defendants’ actions, or failure to act, during the prison appeals process, caused
17
him actual prejudice with respect to pending litigation or a claim that he was unable to bring.
18
Plaintiff does not discuss the underlying merits of the appeals and does not appear to be suing
19
for an underlying issue—he is complaining about the grievance process itself. The complaint
20
does not describe an injury impacting Plaintiff’s litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing
21
deadline or to present a claim.
22
The only mention of another case is a reference to a case in this District, Johnson v.
23
Sweeney, 1:14-cv-01526-DAD-SAB. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Morgan conspired with
24
California Attorney General and the Judge to permit the defendants in that case to file an
25
additional summary judgment motion. However, Plaintiff was able to present his claim in that
26
case and the case remains pending at this time. Thus, the Court must conclude that either
27
Plaintiff did not suffer actual harm from the Defendant’s actions, or Plaintiff has yet to suffer
28
any actual harm. In either case, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be
4
1
granted and dismissal of his access to the courts claim is warranted. Because it appears at least
2
possible that Plaintiff may suffer actual harm at some point in the future, the dismissal should
3
be without prejudice.
4
III.
RECOMMENDATION
5
The Court finds that Plaintiff=s First Amended Complaint fails to state any cognizable
6
claim upon which relief may be granted under ' 1983. Plaintiff’s original complaint was
7
previously dismissed with leave to amend for the same reason. (ECF No. 12.) Because it does
8
not appear that Plaintiff can state a cognizable claim at this time, it is RECOMMENDED that
9
this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
10
granted.
11
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
12
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within twenty
13
(20) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file
14
written objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to
15
Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be
16
17
18
served and filed within ten (10) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that
failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.
Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d
19
1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
20
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
24
Dated:
November 2, 2016
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
25
26
27
28
5
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?