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)

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