Taylor v. U.S. Highest State Courts

Filing 4

ORDER of Dismissal. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 9/4/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/4/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 KEITH DESMOND TAYLOR, 9 Plaintiff, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 No. C-14-0696 EMC (pr) ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. U.S. HIGHEST STATE COURTS, 12 Defendants. / 13 14 Keith Desmond Taylor, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison has filed this civil rights 15 action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to complain that smoking is not allowed in prison. The complaint is 16 now before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the court to engage in a 17 preliminary screening of prisoner complaints to identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any 18 claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 19 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at § 1915A(b). 20 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a right 21 secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the violation was 22 committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 23 (1988). 24 Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that it is “unconstitutional” to punish persons who choose to 25 smoke tobacco by not allowing tobacco to be sold in prison. ECF No. 1 at 3. (Plaintiff, who has 26 been on death row almost two decades, see Taylor v. Smith, C 13-4550 EMC, does not explain why 27 he waited so long to challenge the longtime ban on tobacco in California prisons. See Cal. Penal 28 Code § 5030.1 (operative on July 1, 2005); Cal. Code Regs. § 3006(c)(18).) Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. There simply is 2 no constitutional right to smoke and it follows that prison officials do not violate the constitution by 3 imposing a ban on tobacco smoking. See Webber v. Crabtree, 158 F.3d 460, 461 (9th Cir. 1998) 4 (ban on smoking did not violate inmate’s right to equal protection because smoking is not a 5 fundamental right and prison officials had a “legitimate objective of protecting the health and safety 6 of inmates and staff by providing a clean air environment”); LaFaele v. Schwarzenegger, 369 Fed. 7 App’x 862 (9th Cir. 2010) (district court properly dismissed claims that prison system’s ban on 8 smoking violated inmate’s rights under Eighth Amendment, Due Process Clause and Equal 9 Protection Clause); Thiel v. Nelson, 422 F.Supp.2d 1024, 1029 (W. D. Wisc. 2006) (listing “an 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 1 avalanche of cases in which federal courts have rejected constitutional challenges to smoking 11 restrictions in prisons”). Even giving the pro se complaint the liberal construction to which it is 12 entitled, see Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990), a claim is not 13 stated under § 1983 because the ban on tobacco and smoking did not violate any of plaintiff’s 14 constitutional rights. In light of the determination that there was no constitutional violation, the 15 court need not reach the issues of the apparent untimeliness of the complaint or the improper 16 defendant. 17 18 For the foregoing reasons, this action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Clerk shall close the file. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 Dated: September 4, 2014 23 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?