Hollins v. Munks et al

Filing 11

ORDER OF DISMISSAL by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denying 9 Motion for Discovery; denying 10 Motion to Appoint Counsel (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (nahS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/7/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 OAKLAND DIVISION 6 7 MICHAEL HOLLINS, Plaintiff, 8 vs. 9 ORDER OF DISMISSAL GREG MUNKS, et. al., Defendants. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 No. C 13-5574 PJH (PR) / 12 Plaintiff, a detainee at Maguire Correctional Facility has filed a pro se civil rights 13 complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 The original complaint was dismissed with leave to 14 amend and plaintiff has filed an amended complaint. 15 DISCUSSION 16 A. Standard of Review 17 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners 18 seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 19 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and 20 dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may 21 be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 22 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 23 Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of 25 the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; 26 the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the 27 28 1 Plaintiff has filed fourteen cases in this court in the last few months, several with overlapping claims. omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual 3 allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' 4 requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 5 cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief 6 above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) 7 (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is 8 plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has recently explained 9 the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the 10 framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are 11 For the Northern District of California grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations 2 United States District Court 1 well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine 12 whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 13 679 (2009). 14 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 15 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 16 violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the 17 color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 18 B. Legal Claims 19 Plaintiff alleges that jail staff have denied him access to the law library. 20 Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts. See Lewis v. Casey, 21 518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). To establish a 22 claim for any violation of the right of access to the courts, the prisoner must prove that there 23 was an inadequacy in the prison's legal access program that caused him an actual injury. 24 See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 350-55. To prove an actual injury, the prisoner must show that the 25 inadequacy in the prison's program hindered his efforts to pursue a non-frivolous claim 26 concerning his conviction or conditions of confinement. See id. at 354-55. 27 28 Once a prisoner identifies the inadequacy in the program (e.g., law library or legal assistant), he must demonstrate that the alleged shortcomings in the program caused him 2 1 an actual injury by hindering his efforts to pursue a legal claim. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 2 351. Examples of impermissible hindrances include: a prisoner whose complaint was 3 dismissed for failure to satisfy some technical requirement which, because of deficiencies 4 in the prison's legal assistance facilities, he could not have known; and a prisoner who had 5 "suffered arguably actionable harm" that he wished to bring to the attention of the court, but 6 was so stymied by the inadequacies of the library that he was unable even to file a 7 complaint. See id.; see, e.g., Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 343 (9th Cir. 2010) (plaintiff 8 demonstrated that denying him law library access while on lockdown resulted in "actual 9 injury" because he was prevented from appealing his conviction); Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 936 (9th Cir. 2004) (agreeing with district court that prisoner "did not allege injury, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 such as inability to file a complaint or defend against a charge, stemming from the 12 restrictions on his access to the law library"). Mere delay in filing papers would not be 13 enough, for example, if they were nevertheless timely filed or accepted and considered by 14 the court. See Hudson v. Robinson, 678 F.2d 462, 466 (3d Cir. 1982). 15 In the original complaint, plaintiff stated that he was not allowed to visit the law 16 library prior to his criminal trial. The trial judge upon learning this, postponed trial so 17 plaintiff could go to the law library. Plaintiff was then provided law library access. Several 18 months later plaintiff again wanted to visit the law library but was denied. He failed to 19 discuss the specifics of this incident and why he needed access, thus the case was 20 dismissed with leave to amend. 21 In the amended complaint, plaintiff states that he needed access to the law library to 22 file cases regarding circumvention of the grievance system, excessive force and denial of 23 freedom of religion. As noted above, plaintiff has filed 14 cases in this court since October 24 including cases regarding all of these issues.2 Plaintiff is unable to demonstrate an injury. 25 Plaintiff also states the law library has a great deal of state law books, but not enough 26 2 27 28 Plaintiff’s case regarding the circumvention of the appeal system was dismissed for failure to state a claim (13-5085), the case regarding excessive force has been dismissed with leave to amend a second time (13-5083) and service was ordered on defendants for the case regarding freedom of religion (13-5035). 3 1 federal law books. As plaintiff makes only conclusory allegations about the lack of federal 2 law books and as he has filed many cases on a wide range of federal issues, he is unable 3 to demonstrate any injury to state a claim. 4 "Under Ninth Circuit case law, district courts are only required to grant leave to 5 amend if a complaint can possibly be saved. Courts are not required to grant leave to 6 amend if a complaint lacks merit entirely." Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 7 2000); see also, Smith v. Pacific Properties and Development Corp., 358 F.3d 1097, 1106 8 (9th Cir. 2004), citing Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995) ("a district 9 court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not be cured by the allegation of other facts."). 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 As plaintiff was already granted leave to amend, this appears to be a situation when to 12 grant plaintiff leave to amend again would be patently futile based on the discussion above. 13 CONCLUSION 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim and this case is closed. 2. The motion to conduct discovery (Docket No. 9) is DENIED as no defendant has been served. 3. The motion to appoint counsel (Docket No. 10) is DENIED as this case has been dismissed. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 7, 2014. PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge 22 23 G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.13\Hollins5574.dsm.wpd 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?