Harrison v. Frietas

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Amended Complaint due by 7/1/2013. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 5/20/13. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/20/2013)

1
2

*E-Filed 5/20/13*
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

8
9

GREGORY C. HARRISON, SR.,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

No. C 13-0177 RS (PR)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

v.
STEVE FREITAS,

13

Defendant.

14

/

15
16

INTRODUCTION

17

This is a federal civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a pro se state

18

prisoner. After review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court

19

DISMISSES the complaint with leave to file an amended complaint on or before July 1,

20

2013.

21
22
23

DISCUSSION
A.

Standard of Review
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner

24

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

25

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and

26

dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

27

be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id.

28
No. C 13-0177 RS (PR)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

1

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica

2

Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim

3

to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)

5

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial

6

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

7

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting

8

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal conclusions

9

cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

4

the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 (9th Cir. 1994).

11

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:

12

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and

13

(2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

14

See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

15

B.

16

Legal Claims
Plaintiff alleges that defendant, his jailor, is denying him access to the courts by

17

failing to give him sufficient access to legal materials. Prisoners have a constitutional right

18

of access to the courts. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996); Bounds v. Smith, 430

19

U.S. 817, 821 (1977). Prison officials must provide prisoners with “the capability of

20

bringing contemplated challenges to sentences or conditions of confinement before the

21

courts.” Casey, 518 U.S. at 356. To establish a claim for a violation of the right of access to

22

the courts, the prisoner must prove that there was an inadequacy in the prison’s legal access

23

program that caused him an actual injury. See id. 518 U.S. at 350–55. To prove an actual

24

injury, the prisoner must show that the inadequacy in the prison’s program hindered his

25

efforts to pursue a nonfrivolous claim concerning his conviction or conditions of

26

confinement. See id. at 354–55.

27

Plaintiff’s allegations do not meet these requirements. The Court cannot determine

28
No. C 13-0177 RS (PR)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

2

1

from the complaint what, if any, nonfrivolous claim the prisoner has regarding the legality,

2

duration, or conditions of his confinement. Denial of library privileges without a connection

3

to the basis of a valid claim is in and of itself insufficient. Thus, the complaint does not

4

contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim for relief. Accordingly, the complaint is

5

DISMISSED with leave to amend.

6

Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint on or before July 1, 2013. The first

7

amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order

8

(13-0177 RS (PR)) and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page.

9

Because an amended complaint completely replaces the previous complaints, plaintiff must

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

include in his first amended complaint all the claims he wishes to present and all of the

11

defendants he wishes to sue, including the excessive force claim found cognizable. See

12

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Any claims not raised in the

13

amended complaint will be deemed waived. Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the

14

prior complaint by reference. Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this

15

order will result in dismissal of this action without further notice to plaintiff.

16

It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court

17

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice

18

of Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion or ask

19

for an extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in the dismissal of this action

20

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

21

Plaintiff’s claims regarding his allegedly illegal placement in administrative

22

segregation are DISMISSED without prejudice. As they are unrelated to his access to the

23

courts claim, he must file them in a separate civil rights action.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 20, 2013
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

26
27
28

No. C 13-0177 RS (PR)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

3