Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03931/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03931-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GABRIEL RALPH REYES,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

ROBERT HOREL, Warden; N.

GRANNIS; J. BURLESON; M. D.

CASTELLAW; D. T. HAWKES; K.

McGUYER; W. ANTHONY; J. BEESON;

D. BARNEBURG; and JOHN DOES 1-5,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-3931 PJH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, a prisoner at Pelican Bay State Prison, has filed a pro se civil rights

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis. 

Venue is proper in this district because a substantial part of the events giving rise to

the action occurred in this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

DISCUSSION

A. 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). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and

dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

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

Case 4:07-cv-03931-PJH Document 6 Filed 05/11/10 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

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

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was

violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual

allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his 'entitle[ment] to relief'

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief

above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65

(2007) (per curium) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a

claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 1974. 

The United States Supreme Court has recently explained the “plausible on its face”

standard of Twombly:: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint,

they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual

allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly

give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009). 

B. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff is an artist who donates his art works to outside nonprofit groups, most of

whom work for prison reform. He asserts that he has been retaliated against for exercising

his First Amendment right to write to these organizations and thereby advocate prison

reform. 

Plaintiff contends in claim one that he tried to send an invitation to a MexicanAmerican group at Humboldt State University to attend an art display in Eureka at which

some of plaintiff’s work would be shown. The mail was blocked by the prison mail room

and his grievances were rejected. He does not say who he intends to be defendants on

this claim, nor does he provide any specific factual allegations as who did what – for

instance, which of the defendant’s rejected the mail. He thus has failed to state a claim

against any defendant in claim one. It will be dismissed with leave to amend.

Case 4:07-cv-03931-PJH Document 6 Filed 05/11/10 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff contends in claim two that defendants Hawkes and McGuyer prohibited him

from corresponding with the coordinator of the “Art Behind Bars” program. This is sufficient

to state a claim against them. See Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 413 (1974),

overruled on other grounds, Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 413-14 (1989)

(censorship of outgoing mail justified only if (1) the regulation or practice in question

furthers one or more of the substantial governmental interests of security, order and

rehabilitation, and (2) the limitation on First Amendment freedoms is no greater than

necessary to further the particular government interest involved). Plaintiff’s claim that

defendant Beeson rejected his grievance about the correspondence restriction is not,

however, sufficient to state a claim. See Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728 (8th Cir. 1991) (there

is a First Amendment right to petition government for redress of grievances, but there is no

right to a response or any particular action). It will be dismissed with leave to amend.

In his third claim, plaintiff contends that a letter he sent to his cousin and her family

inviting them to attend an “Art Behind Bars” show in which his work would be displayed was

blocked by defendant Barneburg. This is sufficient to state a claim. 

Plaintiff contends in his fourth claim that Barneburg prevented him from sending

another outgoing letter containing ostensibly innocent comments This is sufficient to state

a claim.

The court has concluded above that plaintiff’s complaint states a claim against

Hawkes, McGuyer and Barneburg. His claims against the other defendants, as well as all

of claim one, will be dismissed with leave to amend. In amending, plaintiff should bear in

mind that knowing about a constitutional violation, for instance because of reading a

grievance, and not doing anything to remedy it, is not a cause of the violation, and thus is

not sufficient for liability. See Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1342 (9th Cir.1990)

(“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 act, or

omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of

which complaint is made.”). He must state facts in the amendment about each defendant’s

Case 4:07-cv-03931-PJH Document 6 Filed 05/11/10 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

actions that are sufficient to present a plausible claim that each violated his rights. See

Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) ("[a] plaintiff must allege facts,

not simply conclusions, that show that an individual was personally involved in the

deprivation of his civil rights."). This includes the John Doe defendants. 

CONCLUSION

1. For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend, as

indicated above, within thirty days from the date of this order. The amended complaint

must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the words

AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely

replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to

present, including those that the court has about found to be cognizable. See Ferdik v.

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the

original complaint by reference. Failure to amend within the designated time will result in

the dismissal of these claims.

2. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed

“Notice of 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 for failure to prosecute pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2010. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

P:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.07\REYES3931.DWLTA.wpd

Case 4:07-cv-03931-PJH Document 6 Filed 05/11/10 Page 4 of 4