McCowan v. Salinas Valley Warden et al

Filing 19

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 5/3/16. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12

VINCENT PRICE MCCOWAN,

No. C 15-3419 RS (PR)

Plaintiff,

13

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.

14
15

SALINAS VALLEY WARDEN, et al.,

16

Defendants.
/

17

INTRODUCTION

18

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this federal civil rights action under

19
20

42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the librarian and correctional officers at Salinas Valley State Prison.

21

The original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff’s amended complaint

22

fails to correct the deficiencies of the first and is DISMISSED.
DISCUSSION

23
24
25
26

A.

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

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

27
28

No. C 15-3419 RS (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).

6

A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim

7

to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting

8

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

9

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

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550

11

U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal conclusions cast in the

12

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

13

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

14

claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right

15

secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged

16

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins,

17

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

18

B.

Legal Claims

19

1.

20

In the original complaint, plaintiff alleged that (1) S. Tomlinson, a Salinas Valley

Original Complaint

21

prison librarian, prevented him from using the law library, thereby violating his First

22

Amendment right to access the courts; and (2) prison guards J. Marquez, M. Barroso, J.

23

Hopark, J. Huff, and Johnson filed a false disciplinary report and have refused to answer his

24

questions regarding that and other events. Claim 2 was dismissed without prejudice because

25

it was unrelated to the first.

26
27
No. C 15-3419 RS (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

28
2

1

Claim 1 was dismissed with leave to amend because his allegations failed to show an

2

actual injury. Mere denial of access to the courts is not sufficient to state a claim. A plaintiff

3

must demonstrate that the denial caused him an actual injury by hindering his efforts to

4

pursue a nonfrivolous legal claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349, 351 (1996).

5

Plaintiff failed to detail what his lawsuit was about, or specify exactly how Tomlinson

6

prevented him from using the library, or how Tomlinson’s actions directly and specifically

7

hindered his prosecution of his suit.
2.

9

Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to correct the deficiencies of the original and adds

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

a claim that Tomlinson’s actions were racially discriminatory. While he has identified a suit

11

he has filed (a state court action regarding prison conditions), he has not shown how

12

Tomlinson’s acts prevented him from adequately prosecuting it. He alleges that (1) in 2013,

13

plaintiff made a request (for unspecified materials) on August 1 but Tomlinson did not

14

respond until August 2; and (2) in 2015 he made three requests (for unspecified materials)

15

which she ignored or was tardy in fulfilling. This is insufficient to show an actual injury. He

16

does not specify what materials he requested and why deprivation of them prevented him

17

from litigating his state court action. Such allegations fail to show “more than a sheer

18

possibility that [ ] defendants ha[ve] acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Accordingly,

19

plaintiff’s claim that Tomlinson violated his First Amendment right to access the courts is

20

DISMISSED.

21

First Amended Complaint

His allegations that Tomlinson’s actions were racially discriminatory lack any detail

22

and therefore are wholly conclusory. “[F]ormulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of

23

action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. “The Equal Protection Clause of the

24

Fourteenth Amendment commands that no State shall ‘deny to any person within its

25

jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,’ which is essentially a direction that all persons

26

similarly situated should be treated alike.” City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473

27
No. C 15-3419 RS (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

28
3

1

U.S. 432, 439 (1985) (quoting Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216 (1982)). A plaintiff alleging

2

denial of equal protection under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on race or other suspect

3

classification must plead intentional unlawful discrimination or allege facts that are at least

4

susceptible of an inference of discriminatory intent. Monteiro v. Tempe Union High School

5

Dist., 158 F.3d 1022, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff’s allegations do not meet these

6

standards and are DISMISSED.

7
8
9

CONCLUSION
This federal civil rights action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff may move
to reopen the action. Any motion to reopen, however, must be accompanied by an amended

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

complaint that contains allegations which meet the legal standards discussed in this order.

11

The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of defendants and close the file.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 3, 2016
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

No. C 15-3419 RS (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

28
4