Steward v. Gillson et al

Filing 32

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 3/28/19. The deputy clerk hereby certifies that on 3/28/19 a copy of this order was served by sending it via first-class mail to the address of each non-CM/ECF user listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2019)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

ROBERT M. STEWARD,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 18-cv-02152-RS (PR)

5

v.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

6
7

J. GILLSON,
Defendant.

8
9

INTRODUCTION

10

Plaintiff filed this federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a prison

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

guard at Pelican Bay State Prison. After reviewing his second amended complaint under

13

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court concludes that plaintiff fails to state any claim for relief.

14

Accordingly, this federal civil rights action is DISMISSED.
DISCUSSION

15
16
17

A.

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

18

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

19

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

20

cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim

21

upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

22

from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed.

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55

4

(9th Cir. 1994). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two

5

essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States

6

was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the

7

color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

8

B.

Legal Claims
Plaintiff has alleged in his three complaints that on December 20, 2016 prison guard

9

Gillson “collected my out-going mail” and “proceeded to distribute the letters” to other

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

prisoners. This is insufficient to state any claim for relief. An isolated incident of mail

12

mishandling or mail delay is insufficient to state a claim under section 1983. See Crofton

13

v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957, 961 (9th Cir. 1999); Bach v. Illinois, 504 F.2d 1100, 1102 (7th Cir.

14

1974). Also, the allegations give rise to, at most, a claim of negligence or gross

15

negligence, neither of which is actionable under section 1983. See Farmer v. Brennan,

16

511 U.S. 825, 835-36 & n.4 (1994); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir.

17

1990).

18

CONCLUSION

19

This federal civil rights action is DISMISSED without prejudice. If plaintiff

20

believes he can allege a constitutional claim cognizable under section 1983, he is free to

21

file an amended complaint. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of defendant, and

22

close the file.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March ___, 2019
28
_________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

CASE NO. 18-cv-02152-RS

2