Myers v. US Marshals Service
Filing
18
ORDER Dismissing First Amended Complaint without prejudice for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b). Plaintiff's motion 17 for Case Status is granted. Signed by Judge John A. Houston on 08/19/11. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jpp)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
WILLIAM THOMAS MYERS,
CDCR #E-18846,
Civil No.
Plaintiff,
13
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b)
vs.
14
15
10cv2662 JAH (JMA)
U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE,
Defendant.
16
17
18
I.
19
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
20
On December 23, 2010, Plaintiff, William Thomas Myers, an inmate currently
21
incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison located in Calipatria, California, filed a civil rights action
22
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma
23
Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [ECF No. 4].
24
On February 15, 2011, this Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP and sua
25
sponte dismissed the Complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
26
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b). See Feb. 15, 2011 Order at 5-6. Plaintiff was granted leave to
27
file an Amended Complaint in order to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified by the
28
Court. Id. Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to amend his Complaint and he also
K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\JAH\10cv2662-Dismiss FAC.wpd
-1-
10cv2662 JAH (JMA)
1
filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiff then filed his First
2
Amended Complaint (“FAC”). On July 7, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed
3
his appeal for lack of jurisdiction [ECF No. 16]. Plaintiff has now also filed a “Motion for Case
4
Status Update.” The Court grants Plaintiff’s request to the extent that the Court issues the
5
following Order dismissing Plaintiff’s action, once again, for failing to state a claim.
6
II.
7
SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b)
8
As the Court stated in its previous Order, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”)
9
obligates the Court to review complaints filed by all persons proceeding IFP and by those, like
10
Plaintiff, who are “incarcerated or detained in any facility [and] accused of, sentenced for, or
11
adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or conditions of parole,
12
probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program,” “as soon as practicable after docketing.”
13
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). Under these provisions of the PLRA, the Court
14
must sua sponte dismiss complaints, or any portions thereof, which are frivolous, malicious, fail
15
to state a claim, or which seek damages from defendants who are immune. See 28 U.S.C. §§
16
1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A; Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (§
17
1915(e)(2)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446 (9th Cir. 2000) (§ 1915A); see also Barren
18
v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (discussing § 1915A).
19
“[W]hen determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all
20
allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to the
21
plaintiff.” Resnick, 213 F.3d at 447; Barren, 152 F.3d at 1194 (noting that § 1915(e)(2)
22
“parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”). In addition, the Court’s
23
duty to liberally construe a pro se’s pleadings, see Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept.,
24
839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988), is “particularly important in civil rights cases.” Ferdik v.
25
Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992). However, in giving liberal interpretation to a
26
pro se civil rights complaint, the court may not “supply essential elements of claims that were
27
not initially pled.” Ivey v. Board of Regents of the University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th
28
K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\JAH\10cv2662-Dismiss FAC.wpd
-2-
10cv2662 JAH (JMA)
1
Cir. 1982). “Vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations
2
are not sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.” Id.
3
A.
Bivens Action
4
Once again, Plaintiff has filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 but he names only
5
a Federal actor as a Defendant. Accordingly, the Court will consider Plaintiff’s claims to arise
6
under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Bivens
7
established that “compensable injury to a constitutionally protected interest [by federal officials
8
alleged to have acted under color of federal law] could be vindicated by a suit for damages
9
invoking the general federal question jurisdiction of the federal courts [pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
10
1331].” Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 486 (1978). “Actions under § 1983 and those under
11
Bivens are identical save for the replacement of a state actor under § 1983 by a federal actor
12
under Bivens.” Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir. 1991).
13
Bivens provides that “federal courts have the inherent authority to award damages against
14
federal officials to compensate plaintiffs for violations of their constitutional rights.” Western
15
Center for Journalism v. Cederquist, 235 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2000). However, a Bivens
16
action may only be brought against the responsible federal official in his or her individual
17
capacity. Daly-Murphy v. Winston, 837 F.2d 348, 355 (9th Cir. 1988). Bivens does not
18
authorize a suit against the government or its agencies for monetary relief. FDIC v. Meyer, 510
19
U.S. 471, 486 (1994); Thomas-Lazear v. FBI, 851 F.2d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 1988); Daly-
20
Murphy, 837 F.2d at 355.
21
B.
Access to Courts claim
22
Plaintiff alleges that his access to the courts has been denied because the United States
23
Marshals Service (“USMS”) has failed to properly serve Defendants in a separate action that
24
Plaintiff has filed. See Myers v. Small, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 08cv1810 JAH (WMc).
25
Prisoners do “have a constitutional right to petition the government for redress of their
26
grievances, which includes a reasonable right of access to the courts.” O’Keefe v. Van Boening,
27
82 F.3d 322, 325 (9th Cir. 1996); accord Bradley v. Hall, 64 F.3d 1276, 1279 (9th Cir. 1995).
28
In Bounds, 430 U.S. at 817, the Supreme Court held that “the fundamental constitutional right
K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\JAH\10cv2662-Dismiss FAC.wpd
-3-
10cv2662 JAH (JMA)
1
of access to the courts requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation and filing
2
of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate
3
assistance from persons who are trained in the law.” Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977).
4
To establish a violation of the right to access to the courts, however, a prisoner must allege facts
5
sufficient to show that: (1) a nonfrivolous legal attack on his conviction, sentence, or conditions
6
of confinement has been frustrated or impeded, and (2) he has suffered an actual injury as a
7
result. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 353-55 (1996). An “actual injury” is defined as “actual
8
prejudice with respect to contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing
9
deadline or to present a claim.” Id. at 348; see also Vandelft v. Moses, 31 F.3d 794, 796 (9th Cir.
10
1994); Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1171 (9th Cir. 1989); Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1093
11
(9th Cir. 1996).
12
Here, however, Plaintiff cannot show the required “actual injury” because his action filed
13
as Myers v. Small, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 08cv1810 JAH (WMc) is still pending and has
14
not been dismissed. As the Court previously informed Plaintiff, any issues regarding service
15
with the USMS should be addressed in that matter rather than filing a separate action.
16
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to state an access
17
to courts claim.
18
III.
19
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
20
Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
21
1)
Plaintiff’s Motion for Case Status [ECF No. 17] is GRANTED.
22
2)
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint [ECF No. 15] is DISMISSED without
23
prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
24
§ 1915(e)(2)(b) and § 1915A(b). Because Plaintiff has been provided an opportunity to correct
25
the deficiencies of pleading, but still has failed to sufficiently state a claim, the Court finds
26
further amendment would be futile. See Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 339 (9th
27
Cir. 1996) (denial of a leave to amend is not an abuse of discretion where further amendment
28
would be futile); see also Robinson v. California Bd. of Prison Terms, 997 F. Supp. 1303, 1308
K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\JAH\10cv2662-Dismiss FAC.wpd
-4-
10cv2662 JAH (JMA)
1
(C.D. Cal. 1998) (“Since plaintiff has not, and cannot, state a claim containing an arguable basis
2
in law, this action should be dismissed without leave to amend; any amendment would be
3
futile.”) (citing Newland v. Dalton, 81 F.3d 904, 907 (9th Cir. 1996)).
4
3)
IT IS FURTHER CERTIFIED that an IFP appeal from this final order of
5
dismissal would not appear to be taken “in good faith” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See
6
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550 (9th
7
Cir. 1977) (indigent appellant is permitted to proceed IFP on appeal only if appeal would not be
8
frivolous).
9
10
11
The Clerk shall close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 19, 2011
12
JOHN A. HOUSTON
United States District Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\JAH\10cv2662-Dismiss FAC.wpd
-5-
10cv2662 JAH (JMA)
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?