Lena v. San Quentin State Prison et al

Filing 18

ORDER DISMISSING CASE, ***Civil Case Terminated.. Signed by Judge James Donato on 12/2/14. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MICHAEL ANGELO LENA,

Case No. 14-cv-02498-JD

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

9
10

SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON, et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 11, 15

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The

13
14

original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend and plaintiff has filed an amended

15

complaint.
DISCUSSION

16
17

I.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

18

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek

19

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

20

§ 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims

21

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek

22

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se

23

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th

24

Cir. 1990).

25

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the

26

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although a complaint “does not need detailed

27

factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to

28

relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

1

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above

2

the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations

3

omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

4

face.” Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face”

5

standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they

6

must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court

7

should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement

8

to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by

9

the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

12

II.

13

LEGAL CLAIMS
Plaintiff states that his legal materials have been confiscated by prison officials.

14

Allegations of destruction or confiscation of legal documents may state a claim for denial of

15

access to the courts. See Morello v. James, 810 F.2d 344, 346-348 (2d Cir. 1987). The state is

16

constitutionally required to provide affirmative assistance to pro se litigants, see Bounds v. Smith,

17

430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977), and cannot satisfy this obligation by providing a prisoner access to the

18

legal resources necessary to prepare his case and then deprive him of his work product, see

19

Morello v. James, 810 F.2d at 346-48. A plaintiff must allege an “actual injury” to court access,

20

however, which consists of a specific “instance in which an inmate was actually denied access to

21

the courts.” Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1171 (9th Cir. 1989). Only if an actual injury is

22

alleged does a plaintiff state a claim for which relief can be granted. See id.; see, e.g., Jenkins v.

23

McMickens, 618 F. Supp. 1472, 1474-75 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (complaint alleging certain documents

24

pertaining to pending trial confiscated and not returned to conclusory to support claim of denial of

25

access to court).

26

Plaintiff has submitted a 128 page amended complaint that names as defendants several

27

prison officials, prosecutors, appointed defense attorneys at trial and on appeal, superior court

28

judges and a judge of the California Court of Appeal. He alleges that the defendants were engaged
2

1

in a vast conspiracy to illegally convict him in Marin County after he was extradited from Canada

2

following an illegally obtained conviction in that country. He states that defendants confiscated

3

23 boxes of his legal materials that contained his appeal and trial evidence regarding his Marin

4

County and Canadian convictions. The original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend so

5

plaintiff could describe how he was denied access to the courts and what legal injury he suffered.

6

Plaintiff has failed to cure these deficiencies in his amended complaint.

7

Plaintiff presents many conclusory allegations that the boxes of legal materials that were
taken contained important evidence that he was framed in Canada and in Marin County. These

9

allegations are insufficient under Iqbal. Simply stating that he has evidence showing that jurors

10

and the judge were biased, or that DNA evidence was falsified, without credibly describing the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

evidence, is not enough. That the trial judge denied many of his motions does not support his

12

allegations of bias and a conspiracy. Moreover, plaintiff spends a great deal of time describing his

13

illegal Canadian conviction and the evidence pertaining to that case, but it is not clear how that

14

relates to his Marin County conviction. Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a claim because he has

15

not sufficiently described a denial of access to the courts that resulted in an actual injury due to the

16

confiscation of his legal materials.
CONCLUSION

17
18

1.

The complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim.

19

2.

Plaintiff’s motions (Docket Nos. 11, 15) are DENIED.

20

3.

The Clerk shall close this case.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24

Dated: December 2, 2014
______________________________________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
3

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MICHAEL ANGELO LENA,

Case No. 14-cv-02498-JD

Plaintiff,
8
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

9
10

SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.
That on 12/2/2014, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing
said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle
located in the Clerk's office.

16
17
18
19

Michael Angelo Lena ID: AN9205
High Desert State Prison
P.O. Box 3030
Susanville, CA 96127

20
21

Dated: 12/2/2014

22
23

Richard W. Wieking
Clerk, United States District Court

24
25
26
27

By:________________________
LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JAMES DONATO

28
4