Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06397/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06397-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TROYCE ERIC JACKSON,

Plaintiff, CV F 04 6397 OWW WMW P

vs. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

LEE ANN CHRONES, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

This action proceeds on the first amended complaint. Plaintiff, an inmate in the

custody of the California Department of Corrections at North Kern State Prison, brings this civil

rights action against defendant Lee Ann Chrones, Warden at North Kern, and Mailroom Sergeant

Benjamin Paster.

Plaintiff’s sole claim in this complaint is that “North Kern State Prison has either

lost or stolen my outgoing legal mail.” Plaintiff alleges that the prison has records of all

incoming legal mail, but no records of outgoing legal mail. Plaintiff also alleges that there is no

record of incoming legal mail from the Fresno County Public Defender’s office after May 14,

2003. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.

To warrant relief under the Civil Rights Act, a plaintiff must allege and show that

Case 1:04-cv-06397-OWW -WMW Document 12 Filed 06/20/06 Page 1 of 5
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

2

defendant’s acts or omissions caused the deprivation of his constitutionally protected rights. 

Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1993). In order to state a claim under § 1983, a

plaintiff must allege that: (1) a person was acting under color of state law at the time the

complained of act was committed; and (2) that person’s conduct deprived plaintiff of rights,

privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Paratt

v.Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981). 

The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between the

actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See

Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

(1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a

constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act,

participates in another’s affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required

to do that causes the deprivation of which the complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d

740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

In the order dismissing the first amended complaint, the court noted that though

Plaintiff has alleged facts indicating that his legal may not be going out, or is not coming in, he

has not alleged any facts to indicate that the named defendants engaged in conduct that deprived

plaintiff of his mail. The Warden and Mailroom Sergeant can not be held liable as supervisors. 

Liability may be imposed on supervisory defendants under § 1983 only if (1) the supervisor

personally participated in the deprivation of constitutional rights or (2) the supervisor knew of

the violations and failed to act to prevent them. Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir.

1989); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff does not allege any facts

indicating that defendants participated in, or knew of and failed to prevent, the alleged wrongs. 

In the first amended complaint, Plaintiff restates generally the facts of the original

Case 1:04-cv-06397-OWW -WMW Document 12 Filed 06/20/06 Page 2 of 5
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

3

complaint. Plaintiff specifically alleges that on June 4, 2003, a letter to Public Defender

Roberto Dulce was logged in to the Legal Mail Log book by correctional officers. Plaintiff

alleges that after May 14, 2003, there is no record of any incoming legal mail from the Fresno

County Public Defenders’ Office. 

Plaintiff alleges no other specific conduct as to defendant Sergeant Paster or Warden

Chrones. Plaintiff alleges that Paster “fraudulently concealed” claims by Plaintiff by not

providing the names of employees who handle legal mail. Plaintiff also alleges that Paster had

provided inadequate supervision.

Plaintiff does not refer to any specific conduct that either of the defendants engaged in

that deprived him of a protected interest. Plaintiff frames his claim as one for deprivation of his

right to seek legal assistance. To the extent that plaintiff is claiming that he has been deprived of

access to the courts, he has not alleged any facts that indicate he suffered actual injury within the

meaning of Casey v. Lewis, 518 U.S.343 (1996).

Because states must ensure indigent prisoners meaningful access to the courts, prison

officials are required to provide either (1) adequate law libraries, or (2) adequate assistance from

persons trained in the law. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977). Under prior law,

Bounds was treated as establishing "core requirements," such that a prisoner alleging deprivation

of the Bounds minima need not allege actual injury to state a constitutional claim. Sands v.

Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1171 (9th Cir. 1989). Recent Supreme Court precedent abolishes such

approach, however, providing that all inmate claims for interference with access to the court

include "actual injury" as an element. Casey v. Lewis, 518 U.S.343 (1996).

To establish a Bounds violation, a prisoner must show that his prison's law library or

legal assistance program frustrated or impeded his ability to pursue a nonfrivolous legal claim. 

Casey, supra, 518 U.S. 343, 347. 

To the extent that Plaintiff is alleging that defendants’ conduct is affecting his criminal

Case 1:04-cv-06397-OWW -WMW Document 12 Filed 06/20/06 Page 3 of 5
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

4

process or underlying conviction, when a prisoner challenges the legality or duration of his

custody, or raises a constitutional challenge which could entitle him to an earlier release, his sole

federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); Young v.

Kenny, 907 F.2d 874 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied 11 S.Ct. 1090 (1991).

Because Plaintiff has failed to correct the deficiencies identified in the order dismissing

the original complaint, the first amended complaint must be dismissed. Plaintiff will, however,

be granted leave to file a second amended complaint.

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the

conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff's constitutional rights. See

Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms

how each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless

there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant's actions and the claimed

deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir.

1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to

make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a

general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375

F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no

longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original

complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's first amended complaint is dismissed; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a

second amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must

bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled "Second Amended Complaint." 

Case 1:04-cv-06397-OWW -WMW Document 12 Filed 06/20/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed.IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 20, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06397-OWW -WMW Document 12 Filed 06/20/06 Page 5 of 5