James v. Calipatria State Prison et al

Filing 6

ORDER Dismissing First Amended Complaint for Failing to State a Claim Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b). If Plaintiff fails to file an Amended Complaint within forty five (45) days, the Court will enter a final Order entering judgment for the Defendants. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 11/10/14.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service t/w § 1983 form)(rlu)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

LOUIS JAMES,
CDCR #AE-7438,

Civil No.

Plaintiff,

13

vs.

14
15
16
17
18
19

CALIPATRIA STATE PRISON;
G.W. JANDA; A. CASTRO;
E. TRUJILLO; GROTH; R.N. NELSON;
CARPIO; M.C. MORALES; J.M.
BUILTEMAN; MARTEL; J.D.
LOZANO; CALIFORNIA DEP’T OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION,
Defendants.

14cv0964 BTM (MDD)

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM
PURSUANT TO
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) AND
§ 1915A(b)

20
21
22
23

I.

Procedural History

24

On April 17, 2014, Louis James (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at Pleasant

25

Valley State Prison located in Coalinga, California and proceeding pro se, filed a civil

26

rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has also filed a Motion to

27

Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). On May 19, 2014,

28

this Court GRANTED Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP but sua sponte dismissed his
1

14cv0964 BTM (MDD)

1

Complaint for failing to state a claim and for seeking monetary damages against immune

2

defendants. See May 19, 2014 Order, ECF No. 3, at 8. Plaintiff was granted leave to file

3

an amended complaint in order to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified by the

4

Court. Id. On June 30, 2014, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

5

(ECF No. 5.)

6

II.

Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b)

7

A.

Standard of Review

8

As the Court stated in its previous Order, the Prison Litigation Reform Act

9

(“PLRA”) obligates the Court to review complaints filed by all persons proceeding IFP

10

and by those, like Plaintiff, who are “incarcerated or detained in any facility [and]

11

accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the

12

terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program,” “as

13

soon as practicable after docketing.” See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). Under

14

these provisions of the PLRA, the Court must sua sponte dismiss complaints, or any

15

portions thereof, which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or which seek

16

damages from defendants who are immune. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A.

17

All complaints must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that

18

the pleader is entitled to relief.” FED.R.CIV.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are

19

not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by

20

mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)

21

(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).

22

B.

42 U.S.C. § 1983

23

“Section 1983 creates a private right of action against individuals who, acting

24

under color of state law, violate federal constitutional or statutory rights.” Devereaux v.

25

Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th Cir. 2001). “To establish § 1983 liability, a plaintiff

26

must show both (1) deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the

27

United States, and (2) that the deprivation was committed by a person acting under color

28

of state law.” Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 1128, 1138 (9th Cir. 2012).
2

14cv0964 BTM (MDD)

1

C.

Access to Courts

2

On October 20, 2011, Plaintiff alleges Defendants performed a cell extraction

3

while Plaintiff was in his cell “in the process of working on his case.” (FAC at 5.)

4

Plaintiff further claims that Defendants searched all of his legal paperwork and when it

5

was returned to him it was “in complete disarray and some of it was missing.” (Id.)

6

Prisoners do “have a constitutional right to petition the government for redress of

7

their grievances, which includes a reasonable right of access to the courts.” O’Keefe v.

8

Van Boening, 82 F.3d 322, 325 (9th Cir. 1996).

9

Supreme Court held that “the fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts

10

requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful

11

legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance

12

from persons who are trained in the law.” Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977).

13

To establish a violation of the right to access to the courts, however, a prisoner must

14

allege facts sufficient to show that: (1) a nonfrivolous legal attack on his conviction,

15

sentence, or conditions of confinement has been frustrated or impeded, and (2) he has

16

suffered an actual injury as a result. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 353-55 (1996). An

17

“actual injury” is defined as “actual prejudice with respect to contemplated or existing

18

litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a claim.” Id. at 348.

19

Here, Plaintiff has failed to alleged any actions with any particularity that have

20

precluded his pursuit of a non-frivolous direct or collateral attack upon either his

21

criminal conviction or sentence or the conditions of his current confinement. See Lewis,

22

518 U.S. at 355; see also Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002) (the non-

23

frivolous nature of the “underlying cause of action, whether anticipated or lost, is an

24

element that must be described in the complaint, just as much as allegations must describe

25

the official acts frustrating the litigation.”). Moreover, Plaintiff has not alleged facts

26

sufficient to show that he has been actually injured by any specific defendant’s actions.

27

Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351. Plaintiff provides no adequate factual allegations regarding the

28

nature of his legal proceedings. He must provide more detail than simply referring to his
3

In Bounds, 430 U.S. at 817, the

14cv0964 BTM (MDD)

1

“legal petitions.”

2

In short, Plaintiff has not alleged that “a complaint he prepared was dismissed,” or

3

that he was “so stymied” by any individual defendant’s actions that “he was unable to

4

even file a complaint,” direct appeal or petition for writ of habeas corpus that was not

5

“frivolous.” Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351; Christopher, 536 U.S. at 416. Therefore, Plaintiff’s

6

access to courts claims must be dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which section

7

1983 relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), § 1915A(b). If Plaintiff chooses

8

to file an amended complaint, he must allege with specific factual detail the nature of his

9

legal proceedings and show that his underlying claims are not frivolous.

10

D.

Grievance procedures

11

Plaintiff also claims that his “right to petition government for redress of

12

grievances” has been violated. (FAC at 6.) The Fourteenth Amendment provides that:

13

“[n]o state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of

14

law.” U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1. “The requirements of procedural due process apply

15

only to the deprivation of interests encompassed by the Fourteenth Amendment’s

16

protection of liberty and property.” Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569 (1972).

17

State statutes and prison regulations may grant prisoners liberty or property interests

18

sufficient to invoke due process protection. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 223-27

19

(1976). To state a procedural due process claim, Plaintiff must allege: “(1) a liberty or

20

property interest protected by the Constitution; (2) a deprivation of the interest by the

21

government; [and] (3) lack of process.” Wright v. Riveland, 219 F.3d 905, 913 (9th Cir.

22

2000).

23

However, the Ninth Circuit has held that prisoners have no protected property

24

interest in an inmate grievance procedure arising directly from the Due Process Clause.

25

See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 869 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[I]nmates lack a separate

26

constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure”) (citing Mann v.

27

Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988) (finding that the due process clause of the

28

Fourteenth Amendment creates “no legitimate claim of entitlement to a [prison] grievance
4

14cv0964 BTM (MDD)

1

procedure”)).

2

In addition, Plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to show that prison official

3

deprived him of a protected liberty interest by allegedly failing to respond to his prison

4

grievances in a satisfactory manner. While a liberty interest can arise from state law or

5

prison regulations, Meachum, 427 U.S. at 223-27, due process protections are implicated

6

only if Plaintiff alleges facts to show that Defendants: (1) restrained his freedom in a

7

manner not expected from his sentence, and (2) “impose[d] atypical and significant

8

hardship on [him] in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Conner,

9

515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). Plaintiff pleads nothing to suggest how the allegedly

10

inadequate review and consideration of his inmate grievances resulted in an “atypical”

11

and “significant hardship.” Id. at 483-84. Thus, to the extent Plaintiff challenges the

12

procedural adequacy of inmate grievance procedures, his First Amended Complaint fails

13

to state a due process claim.

14

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint fails to state a section

15

1983 claim upon which relief may be granted and is therefore subject to dismissal

16

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b) & 1915A(b). The Court will provide Plaintiff

17

with an opportunity to amend his pleading to cure the defects set forth above. Plaintiff

18

is warned that if his amended complaint fails to address the deficiencies of pleading noted

19

above, it may be dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend.

20

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

21

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

22

1.

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for

23

failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b) and 1915A(b). However,

24

Plaintiff is GRANTED forty five (45) days leave from the date this Order is electronically

25

filed in which to file a Second Amended Complaint which cures all the deficiencies of

26

pleading identified in this Order. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint must be complete in

27

itself without reference to his original pleading. See S.D. CAL. CIVLR 15.1; King v.

28

Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted) (“All causes of action alleged
5

14cv0964 BTM (MDD)

1

in an original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.”).

2
3

2.

If Plaintiff fails to file an Amended Complaint within forty five (45) days,

4

the Court will enter a final Order entering judgment for the Defendants. The Clerk of

5

Court is directed to mail a form § 1983 complaint to Plaintiff.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
DATED: November 10, 2014
8
9

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge
United States District Court

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6

14cv0964 BTM (MDD)