Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01674/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01674-2/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT HERD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JAMES D. HARTLEY, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:12-cv-01674-AWI-BAM (PC)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE 

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND TO 

ATTACH EXHIBITS (ECF No. 16)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

(ECF No. 17)

FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE

I. Background

Plaintiff Scott Herd (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on 

June 6, 2012. The matter was transferred to this Court on October 12, 2012. On October 29, 

2013, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend within thirty days. (ECF 

No. 13.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s request for a sixty day extension of time to amend his 

complaint. (ECF No. 15.) 

II. Motion to Amend and to Attach Exhibits

On February 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 15. Plaintiff also requested permission to remove the exhibits from his 

July 9, 2012 complaint, attach them to his first amended complaint and incorporate them by 

reference into his first amended complaint. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff also filed his first amended 

complaint. (ECF No. 17.) 

Case 1:12-cv-01674-DAD-BAM Document 18 Filed 04/03/14 Page 1 of 6
2

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

Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend is unnecessary. The Court previously granted 

Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint and granted Plaintiff an extension of time. Although 

moot, Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend is GRANTED. 

Plaintiff also requests to remove the exhibits from his original complaint, attach them to 

his first amended complaint and incorporate them by reference. Generally, the Court requires 

that all amended pleadings contain copies of all exhibits referred to in the changed pleading. 

Local Rule 220. However, a party may obtain permission from the Court for removal of any 

exhibits attached to a superseded pleading so that the exhibits may be attached to the changed 

pleading. Local Rule 220. In this instance, the Court finds Plaintiff’s request reasonable and 

Plaintiff’s request that the exhibits be removed from his original pleading and attached to his 

amended pleading is GRANTED. 

III. Findings and Recommendations Regarding Dismissal

A. Screening Requirement and Standard

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed on February 3, 2014, is currently before the 

Court for screening. (ECF No. 17.) On screening, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is 

considered to include those exhibits attached to his July 9, 2012 pleading. 

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or 

malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary 

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 

1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 

(2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge 

Case 1:12-cv-01674-DAD-BAM Document 18 Filed 04/03/14 Page 2 of 6
3

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

unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings 

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 

342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially 

plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each 

named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949

(quotation marks omitted); Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 

2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere 

consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

B. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff is currently housed at Avenal State Prison, where the events in his complaint are 

alleged to have occurred. Plaintiff names Correctional Officers A. Garcia and Flores as 

defendants. 

Plaintiff alleges as follows: On April 8 or 9, 2012, Defendant A. Garcia destroyed, 

withheld or concealed Plaintiff’s confidential mail addressed to Judge Thelton E. Henderson in 

the Northern District of California. The confidential package included a two-page comment 

letter and supporting documents for the purpose of relating his personal experiences with prison 

health care at a public hearing on April 30, 2012, which concerned the proposal to end the 

Federal Receivership over the CDCR’s health care responsibilities. Plaintiff contends that on 

April 8 or 9, 2012, he presented the confidential mail package to Defendant Garcia. Plaintiff 

shook out the mail package and opened the large envelope for inspection of possible contraband. 

Plaintiff then sealed the confidential mail package in front of Defendant Garcia and sealed it with 

clear tape. Defendant Garcia filled out the ASP-125 outgoing legal/confidential mail log. 

Plaintiff signed his name on the inmate section of the form. Plaintiff believes that Defendant 

Garcia searched and stole or destroyed Plaintiff’s confidential mail package. 

Case 1:12-cv-01674-DAD-BAM Document 18 Filed 04/03/14 Page 3 of 6
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

On May 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed a CDCR-22 request form for a copy of his CDC-19 

confidential mail log covering the time period of April 8 or 9, 2012. On May 15, 2012, Plaintiff 

received a copy of the log. Plaintiff’s confidential mail package was not recorded on the log. 

Plaintiff contends that the confidential mail package was never mailed to the addressee for the

public hearing in federal court on April 30, 2012. 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Flores had a statutory duty to verify that Plaintiff’s 

confidential mail was recorded on the outgoing log and then place the confidential mail package 

in the green legal mailbag and secure the bag. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Flores had 

a mandatory duty to place a completed copy of the outgoing log form with the confidential mail, 

maintain the original form in the housing unit and make a photocopy for the Housing Sergeant. 

Plaintiff further alleges that on May 24, 2012, he mailed a second copy of his comment 

letter to Judge Henderson, along with a cover letter asking for information so that he could file a 

criminal complaint concerning the theft of his confidential mail. 

Plaintiff asserts claims for violation of his First Amendment rights, violation of his 

Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and a violation of 

his right to privacy, along with state law claims. 

C. Discussion

1. First Amendment - Access to Court

To the extent Plaintiff is alleging a violation of his right to access the court under the 

First Amendment, he has failed to state a cognizable claim. 

Inmates have a fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 

518 U.S. 343, 346, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 2177, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996). The right is limited to direct 

criminal appeals, habeas petitions, and civil rights actions. Id. at 354. Claims for denial of access 

to the courts may arise from the frustration or hindrance of “a litigating opportunity yet to be 

gained” (forward-looking access claim) or from the loss of a meritorious suit that cannot now be 

tried (backward-looking claim). Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 412-15, 122 S.Ct. 2179,

2185-87 (2002). 

Case 1:12-cv-01674-DAD-BAM Document 18 Filed 04/03/14 Page 4 of 6
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

27

28

Here, Plaintiff has not stated a claim for denial of access to the courts. Plaintiff was not 

attempting to initiate a criminal appeal, habeas petition or civil rights action. As admitted by 

Plaintiff, he was simply sending his commentary regarding the proposed end to a federal 

receivership over CDCR’s medical responsibilities. Plaintiff has been unable to cure this claim 

by amendment. 

2. Outgoing Mail

Plaintiff alleges that the taking and opening of his confidential legal mail violated his 

Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and his right to 

privacy. The issue of whether a prison official can open legal materials outside of an inmate’s 

presence is more appropriately considered under the First Amendment. See, e.g., Treglia v. 

Cate, 2012 WL 3731774, *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2012). 

Prisoners have a First Amendment right to send and receive mail. See Witherow v. Paff, 

52 F.3d 264, 265 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam). However, an isolated incident of mail tampering 

or interference, such as that alleged here, usually does not support a claim under section 1983 for 

the violation of a constitutional right. See, e.g., Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 351-52 (2d Cir. 

2003) (two instances of mail interference insufficient to state a claim where prisoner failed to 

allege an ongoing practice or prejudice to his legal actions). Further, Plaintiff has not alleged 

any resultant injury from the alleged interference with his letter addressed to Judge Henderson. 

Additionally, based on this Court’s docket, it appears that Plaintiff successfully mailed his 

commentary to Judge Henderson by letter dated May 24, 2012, which was received by the 

Northern District of California on June 6, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has been unable to cure 

the deficiencies in this claim. 

3. State Law Claims

The Court declines to address Plaintiff’s purported state law claims because it will not 

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such a claim in the absence of any cognizable federal 

claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), (c); Herman Family Revocable Trust v. Teddy Bear, 254 F.3d 802, 

805 (9th Cir.2001) (supplemental jurisdiction may only be invoked when the court has original 

jurisdiction). “When ... the court dismisses the federal claim leaving only state claims for 

Case 1:12-cv-01674-DAD-BAM Document 18 Filed 04/03/14 Page 5 of 6
6

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

resolution, the court should decline jurisdiction over the state claims and dismiss them without 

prejudice.” Les Shockley Racing v. National Hot Rod Ass’n, 884 F.2d 504, 509 (9th Cir.1989).

IV. Conclusion and Recommendations

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint fails to state a cognizable section 1983 claim. As 

Plaintiff was unable to cure the deficiencies previously identified by the Court, further leave to 

amend shall not be granted. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED based on 

Plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable section 1983 claim. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 

file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 3, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01674-DAD-BAM Document 18 Filed 04/03/14 Page 6 of 6