Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03430/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03430-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KIFA A. MOHAMMED, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

P. CARRIER, Office Services

Supervisor I, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-3430 JSW (PR)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS AND

DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(Docket no. 2)

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Correctional Training Facility at Soledad, has filed a pro se

civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma

pauperis. This order reviews the claims in Plaintiff's complaint under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). 

STATEMENT OF FACTS

According to the allegations in the complaint, on or about July 15, 2003, Defendants P.

Carrier, Office Services Supervisor I, P. Dillard, Associate Warden, and Joe McGrath,

Warden, violated Plaintiff's constitutional right of access to the courts because they

intentionally, knowingly, and maliciously opened his legal mail on many occasions outside of

his presence. He seeks monetary damages. 

ANALYSIS

I. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The district court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or

any portion of the complaint, if the complaint "is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted," or "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

Case 3:05-cv-03430-JSW Document 6 Filed 02/13/06 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

from such relief." Id. § 1915A(b). However, pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: 

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2)

that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West

v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

II. Legal Claims

Prisoners enjoy a First Amendment right to send and receive mail. See Witherow v.

Paff, 52 F.3d 264, 265 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407

(1989)). A prison, however, may adopt regulations or practices which impinge on a prisoner's

First Amendment rights as long as the regulations are "reasonably related to legitimate

penological interests." See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). Prison officials may

institute procedures for inspecting "legal mail," e.g., mail sent between attorneys and

prisoners, see Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 576-77 (1974) (incoming mail from

attorneys), and mail sent from prisoners to the courts, see Royse v. Superior Court, 779 F.2d

573, 574-75 (9th Cir. 1986) (outgoing mail to court). But in some circumstances the opening

and inspecting of legal mail outside the presence of the prisoner may have an impermissible

chilling effect on the constitutional right to petition the government. See O'Keefe v. Van

Boening, 82 F.3d 322, 325 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 11 (1972)); but

cf. Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1094 (9th Cir. 1996), amended, 135 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir.

1998) (prison officials may open and inspect mail to prisoner from courts outside prisoner's

presence because mail from courts, as opposed to mail from a prisoner's lawyer, is not legal

mail). If so, prison officials must establish that legitimate penological interests justify the

policy or practice. See O'Keefe, 82 F.3d at 327 (mail policy that allows prison mailroom

employees to open and read grievances sent by prisoners to state agencies outside prisoners'

presence reasonable means to further legitimate penological interests).

Case 3:05-cv-03430-JSW Document 6 Filed 02/13/06 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

The deliberate delay of legal mail which adversely affects legal proceedings presents a

cognizable claim for denial of access to the courts. See Jackson v. Procunier, 789 F.2d 307,

311 (5th Cir. 1986). Isolated incidents of mail interference without any evidence of improper

motive or resulting interference with the right to counsel or access to the courts do not give

rise to a constitutional violation, however. See Smith v. Maschner, 899 F.2d 940, 944 (10th

Cir. 1990); Morgan v. Montanye, 516 F.2d 1367, 1370-71 (2d Cir. 1975) (no claim where

letter from prisoner's attorney opened out of prisoner's presence in single instance), cert.

denied, 424 U.S. 973 (1976); Bach v. Illinois, 504 F.2d at 1102 (isolated incident of mail

mishandling insufficient to state claim under § 1983).

Plaintiff's allegations do not state a claim upon which relief may be granted. First, he

states that his constitutional rights were violated on or about July 15, 2003, but also states that

his mail was opened on "many occasions" outside of his presence. Plaintiff must provide the

Court with more specific information about the dates or number of times on which his mail

was opened. Conclusory allegations which cannot be proven at trial cannot state a claim for

relief. Because Plaintiff alleges that he exhausted his administrative remedies regarding this

claim, he should be able to rely upon his administrative grievances to substantiate the number

of incidents.

Plaintiff also has not identified whether incoming or outgoing legal mail was opened,

and to and from whom the mail was addressed. Different standards of review could apply

depending on this pertinent information. Accordingly, Plaintiff must provide this specific

information with respect to each instance of alleged mail tampering.

Finally, Plaintiff has not directly linked any of the named Defendants to his allegations. 

The failure to do so is fatal to his claims. Unless he can tell the Court exactly how each of

these Defendants is personally responsible for the alleged violation of his constitutional rights,

the Defendants will not be ordered to respond to the complaint.

For these reasons, Plaintiff's claim against these Defendants is DISMISSED. In accord

Case 3:05-cv-03430-JSW Document 6 Filed 02/13/06 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4

with Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc), Plaintiff will be given

the opportunity to amend his complaint to cure the pleading deficiencies which the Court has

identified. The failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. (Docket no. 2.) 

2. Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted. Within thirty days from the date of this order, Plaintiff may file an amended

complaint which cures the pleading deficiencies set forth above. The amendment must include

the caption and civil case number used in this order and the words "COURT ORDERED

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT" on the first page. Failure to amend within the designated

time will result in the dismissal of these claims.

3. Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 

"[A] plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are not

alleged in the amended complaint." London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th

Cir. 1981). Defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants. See

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992). 

4. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court

informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court's orders in a timely

fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 13, 2006

 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03430-JSW Document 6 Filed 02/13/06 Page 4 of 4