Bovan v. Brazington et al

Filing 30

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT. The First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The court certifies any appeal of this dismissal would not be taken in good faith. The file is CLOSED. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Rice. (LLH, Courtroom Deputy)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 JAMAR ANDRE BOVAN, 8 NO: 13-CV-0138 -TOR Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 9 v. 10 11 12 13 14 RITA BRAZINGTON, MAGGIE MILLER-STOUT, EARL X. WRIGHT, DAN PACHOLKE, THOMAS ORTH, MR. KLEMKE, MR. LAWRENCE, MS. BURK, BOB CAPES, MS. SIAZ, CC2 STOKES, CS FITZPATRICK, RON FREDRICK, CLARA CURL and OFFICER ALEXANDER, 15 Defendants. 16 17 BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 18 29). Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Monroe Correctional Complex-Minimum Security 19 Unit, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff seeks $10 billion in 20 ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT -- 1 1 punitive damages and $2 billion “for retaliation” at the Airway Heights Corrections 2 Center. 3 After reviewing the First Amended Complaint in the light most favorable to 4 Plaintiff, the Court finds that he has failed to state facts which “plausibly give rise 5 to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). For the 6 reasons set forth below, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to cure the deficiencies 7 of his initial complaint. 8 GRIEVANCES 9 Once again, Plaintiff appears to assert that Defendant Earl X. Wright, as the 10 Secretary of the Department of Corrections (“DOC”), and Defendant Dan 11 Pacholke, as Director of the DOC, failed to follow policy by not investigating 12 Plaintiff’s grievances further against Defendants Sgt. Orth and CC2 Brazington. 13 Plaintiff complains that his incoming legal mail was opened with “reckless 14 disregard of (DOC) policy and Plaintiff’s Constitutional Due Process rights.” He 15 also seems to allege these Defendants failed to protect Plaintiff from being 16 “assaulted” by Defendant Brazington. Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to 17 state a claim against these Defendants upon which relief may be granted. 18 Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions, an inmate has no due process rights 19 regarding the proper handling of grievances as there is no protected liberty interest 20 in the prison grievance procedure. See Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT -- 2 1 1988) (concluding there is no legitimate claim of entitlement to a prison grievance 2 procedure); see also Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995) (noting that state 3 created liberty interests "are generally limited to freedom from restraint"). 4 failure of prison officials to respond to or process a particular grievance does not 5 violate the Constitution. See Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991); see 6 also Baltoski v. Pretorius, 291 F.Supp.2d 807, 811 (N.D.Ind.2003) ("[t]he right to 7 petition the government for redress of grievances, however, does not guarantee a 8 favorable response, or indeed any response, from state officials"). The 9 Furthermore, the failure to comply with a stated prison policy is not a per se 10 violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Davis v. Sherer, 468 U.S. 11 183, 193-95 (1984). Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the processing of grievances 12 against Defendants Maggie Miller-Stout, Earl X. Wright, Dan Pacholke, CPM 13 Klemke, Siaz, C.S. Fitzpatrick, Ron Fredrick and Clara Curl fail to state claims 14 upon which relief may be granted. 15 LEGAL MAIL 16 Plaintiff contends that on an unspecified date, Defendant Thomas Orth failed 17 to give Plaintiff his incoming legal mail unopened, in violation of DOC policy. 18 Rather, Plaintiff states Defendant Orth sent him a letter stating, “Your ‘legal mail’ 19 was inadvertently opened by one of my staff members and then once realized it 20 was legal mail, was processed accordingly. It was not scanned nor reviewed. I ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT -- 3 1 apologize for the error but when dealing with over 1,000 pieces of mail for 2 offenders on a daily basis, human error does come into play. Your mail was not 3 readily identifiable and was processed through an automatic letter opener.” 4 Plaintiff complains Defendant Orth made a “false statement” because the envelope 5 indicated it was sent from a King County Prosecuting Attorney and was marked 6 “legal mail,” which Plaintiff asserts was then “crossed out with a red and black pen 7 by Sgt. Orth and or his mail room staff at AHCC.” 8 As previously advised, an inadvertent opening of an inmate's legal mail 9 constitutes mere negligence and does not rise to the level of a constitutional rights 10 violation cognizable under § 1983. See Stevenson v. Koskey, 877 F.2d 1435, 1441 11 (9th Cir. 1989). An isolated incident of mail interference or tampering usually 12 does not support a claim under § 1983 for the violation of a constitutional rights. 13 See e.g. Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 351 (2d. Cir. 2003) (isolated incident of 14 mail tampering usually insufficient to state claim); Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 15 427, 431 (8th Cir. 1997) (isolated incident of opening legal mail without evidence 16 of improper motive or resulting interference with access to courts or right to 17 counsel does not support a claim); Smith v. Maschner, 899 F.2d 940, 944 (10th Cir. 18 1990) (isolated incident of opening one piece of legal mail in error does not rise to 19 level of constitutional violation). Here, Plaintiff has presented no facts showing 20 Defendant Orth’s actions interfered with his access to the courts or his right to ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT -- 4 1 counsel. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Defendant Orth 2 upon which relief may be granted. 3 FAILURE TO PROTECT/EXCESSIVE FORCE 4 Plaintiff contends that Defendants Wright, Pacholke, CPM Klemke, CC2 5 Lawrence, CC3 Burk and CC2 Stokes failed to protect Plaintiff from being 6 assaulted by Defendant CC2 Brazington, after Defendant CC2 Stokes allegedly 7 gave Plaintiff permission to knock on Defendant Brazington’s door. Once again, 8 Plaintiff fails to present facts regarding this alleged assault. 9 It appears from Plaintiff’s assertions against Defendant Capes, that Plaintiff 10 knocked on Defendant Brazington’s door, despite the fact there was a posted sign 11 stating, “Do Not Knock.” Defendant Brazington then apparently came out and 12 “took” Plaintiff’s ID. The Court cannot infer, based on the facts presented in the 13 First Amended Complaint that Defendant Brazington engaged in the excessive use 14 of force. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992); Whitley v. Albers, 475 15 U.S. 312, 322-23 (1986). 16 Similarly, the Court cannot infer that on an unspecified date Defendants 17 Wright, Pacholke, Klemke, Lawrence, Burk or Stokes failed to protect Plaintiff 18 from a substantial risk of serious harm. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991); 19 Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 840-847 (1994). Plaintiff’s allegations are 20 ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT -- 5 1 insufficient to state claims against Defendants Brazington, Klemke, Lawrence, 2 Burk, Miller-Stout, Wright, Pacholke, or Stokes upon which relief may be granted. 3 MISCELLANEOUS MAIL CLAIMS/RETALIATION 4 Plaintiff also seems to allege interference with his outgoing legal mail by 5 Defendants Lawrence and Burk. He does not state when this occurred or any of 6 the surrounding circumstances. To the extent Plaintiff may be attempting to state a 7 claim that he was denied access to the court, he has failed to do so. 8 To establish the denial of meaningful access to the courts, a plaintiff must 9 show that he suffered “actual injury” as a result of the defendants’ actions. See 10 Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351-52 (1996) (stating that an inmate bringing an 11 access to the courts claim must establish that he has suffered an "actual injury"); 12 Vandelft v. Moses, 31 F.3d 794, 797 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 825 13 (1995) (holding that an inmate must establish he has suffered an "actual injury" 14 where he alleges that he was denied reasonable access to the law library). Plaintiff 15 presents no facts showing he suffered actual injury to "contemplated or existing 16 litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a claim." 17 Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. at 348. Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to state a 18 claim against Defendants Lawrence and Burk. 19 To the extent Plaintiff asserted Defendant Lawrence’s actions were 20 retaliatory, he failed to present any facts from which the Court could infer a ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT -- 6 1 cognizable claim of retaliation. As previously advised, “[w]ithin the prison 2 context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: 3 (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) 4 because of (3) that prisoner's protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the 5 inmate's exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not 6 reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal,” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 7 559, 567–68 (9th Cir. 2005); accord Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114–15 8 (9th Cir. 2012); Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009), 9 Prisoners have a protected right to file prison grievances. Watison, 668 F.3d 10 at 1114; Brodheim, 584 F.3d at 1269. However, Plaintiff's amended complaint 11 presents no facts supporting a plausible claim that adverse action was taken against 12 him because of his engagement in conduct protected under the First Amendment. 13 Although Plaintiff has a right to file prison grievances, the bare assertion of 14 retaliatory motive does not suffice to support a claim. Watison, 668 F.3d at 1114; 15 Brodheim, 584 F.3d at 1269. 16 In addition, Plaintiff claims that on an unspecified date, Defendant Officer 17 Alexander knowingly gave Plaintiff's incoming regular mail to another inmate. 18 Although Plaintiff asserts this violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process 19 rights, he has failed to state how this incident on an unspecified date caused him 20 harm. ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT -- 7 1 Deliberate mishandling of mail may violate a prisoner's First Amendment 2 and due process rights. 3 mishandling of mail does not state a claim under § 1983. See Smith v. Maschner, 4 899 F.2d 940, 944 (10th Cir. 1990); Bach v. Illinois, 504 F.2d 1100, 1102 (7th Cir. 5 1974) cert. denied sub nom., Bensinger v. Bach, 418 U.S. 910 (1974). 6 Additionally, a plaintiff must be able to show that he was injured by the denial of 7 access to mail. See Morgan v. Montanye, 516 F.2d 1367, 1371 (2nd Cir. 1975), 8 reh'g denied, 521 F.2d 693, cert. denied, 424 U.S. 973 (1976). Although granted 9 the opportunity to do so, Plaintiff has made no such showing. Plaintiff has failed 10 11 However, a single mistake or occasional incident of to state a claim against Defendant Alexander upon which relief may be granted. MENTAL HEALTH RESPONSE 12 Plaintiff once more appears to be complaining of the response he received 13 from Defendant Bob Capes on August 23, 2013, to his request for medication to 14 help him sleep and to calm his “paranoidness.” He claims Defendant Capes wrote: 15 "What I understand is that you knocked on 'do not knock.' She came out and 'took' 16 your ID and that is it and now you are claiming all of this?" and "'You once use to 17 beat people up' so you know about assault." This response is insufficient to show 18 a constitutional violation. 19 For an inmate to state a claim under § 1983 for medical mistreatment or 20 denial of medical care, the prisoner must allege "acts or omissions sufficiently ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT -- 8 1 harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." Estelle v. 2 Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Deliberate indifference exists when an official 3 knows of and disregards a serious medical condition and the official is "aware of 4 facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of harm 5 exists, and he must also draw the inference." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 6 837 (1994). Moreover, "[b]ecause society does not expect that prisoners will have 7 unqualified access to health care, deliberate indifference to medical needs amounts 8 to an 8th Amendment violation only if those needs are 'serious.'" Hudson v. 9 McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992) (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 103-104). 10 Plaintiff has presented no facts from which the Court could infer Defendant 11 Capes was deliberately indifferent to his mental health needs. See McGuckin v. 12 Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1060 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds by WMX 13 Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997); Hutchinson v. United 14 States, 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988) ("Mere negligence in diagnosing or 15 treating a medical condition, without more, does not violate a prisoner's Eighth 16 Amendment rights."). The Court cannot infer from his responsive statements that 17 Defendant Capes either ignored or failed to respond to Plaintiff's mental health 18 needs. 19 relief may be granted. 20 /// Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Defendant Capes upon which ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT -- 9 1 DISMISSAL 2 Having granted Plaintiff the opportunity to amend his complaint to present a 3 plausible claim for relief, and having granted Plaintiff a generous extension of time 4 in which to do so, IT IS ORDERED the First Amended Complaint is 5 DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 6 granted. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b)(1). 7 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), enacted April 26, 1996, a prisoner who 8 brings three or more civil actions or appeals which are dismissed as frivolous or for 9 failure to state a claim will be precluded from bringing any other civil action or 10 appeal in forma pauperis “unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious 11 physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff is advised to read the new 12 statutory provisions under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This dismissal of Plaintiff's 13 complaint may count as one of the three dismissals allowed by 28 U.S.C. § 14 1915(g) and may adversely affect his ability to file future claims. 15 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma 16 pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” The 17 good faith standard is an objective one, and good faith is demonstrated when an 18 individual “seeks appellate review of any issue not frivolous.” See Coppedge v. 19 20 ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT -- 10 1 United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, an 2 appeal is frivolous if it lacks any arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 3 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 5 1. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order, enter Judgment, 6 forward copies to Plaintiff at his last known address, and CLOSE the file. 7 2. The District Court Executive is further directed to forward a copy of this 8 Order to the Office of the Attorney General of Washington, Criminal Justice 9 Division. 10 3. The Court finds that any appeal of this Order would not be taken in good 11 faith and would lack any arguable basis in law or fact. Accordingly, the 12 Court hereby revokes Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status. 13 DATED November 1, 2013. 14 15 THOMAS O. RICE United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT -- 11

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?