Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03419/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03419-3/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 No. C 15-3419 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

VINCENT PRICE MCCOWAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

SALINAS VALLEY WARDEN, et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 15-3419 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this federal civil rights action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the librarian and correctional officers at Salinas Valley State Prison.

The original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff’s amended complaint

fails to correct the deficiencies of the first and is DISMISSED. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

Case 3:15-cv-03419-RS Document 19 Filed 05/03/16 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 No. C 15-3419 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

2

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims and

dismiss any claims that 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. See id.

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

Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim

to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility

when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550

U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal conclusions cast in the

form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts

alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 (9th Cir. 1994). 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

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins,

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

B. Legal Claims 

1. Original Complaint

In the original complaint, plaintiff alleged that (1) S. Tomlinson, a Salinas Valley

prison librarian, prevented him from using the law library, thereby violating his First

Amendment right to access the courts; and (2) prison guards J. Marquez, M. Barroso, J.

Hopark, J. Huff, and Johnson filed a false disciplinary report and have refused to answer his

questions regarding that and other events. Claim 2 was dismissed without prejudice because

it was unrelated to the first.

Case 3:15-cv-03419-RS Document 19 Filed 05/03/16 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 No. C 15-3419 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

3

Claim 1 was dismissed with leave to amend because his allegations failed to show an

actual injury. Mere denial of access to the courts is not sufficient to state a claim. A plaintiff

must demonstrate that the denial caused him an actual injury by hindering his efforts to

pursue a nonfrivolous legal claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349, 351 (1996). 

Plaintiff failed to detail what his lawsuit was about, or specify exactly how Tomlinson

prevented him from using the library, or how Tomlinson’s actions directly and specifically

hindered his prosecution of his suit. 

2. First Amended Complaint

Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to correct the deficiencies of the original and adds

a claim that Tomlinson’s actions were racially discriminatory. While he has identified a suit

he has filed (a state court action regarding prison conditions), he has not shown how

Tomlinson’s acts prevented him from adequately prosecuting it. He alleges that (1) in 2013,

plaintiff made a request (for unspecified materials) on August 1 but Tomlinson did not

respond until August 2; and (2) in 2015 he made three requests (for unspecified materials)

which she ignored or was tardy in fulfilling. This is insufficient to show an actual injury. He

does not specify what materials he requested and why deprivation of them prevented him

from litigating his state court action. Such allegations fail to show “more than a sheer

possibility that [ ] defendants ha[ve] acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Accordingly,

plaintiff’s claim that Tomlinson violated his First Amendment right to access the courts is

DISMISSED. 

His allegations that Tomlinson’s actions were racially discriminatory lack any detail

and therefore are wholly conclusory. “[F]ormulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of

action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. “The Equal Protection Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment commands that no State shall ‘deny to any person within its

jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,’ which is essentially a direction that all persons

similarly situated should be treated alike.” City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473

Case 3:15-cv-03419-RS Document 19 Filed 05/03/16 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 No. C 15-3419 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

4

U.S. 432, 439 (1985) (quoting Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216 (1982)). A plaintiff alleging

denial of equal protection under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on race or other suspect

classification must plead intentional unlawful discrimination or allege facts that are at least

susceptible of an inference of discriminatory intent. Monteiro v. Tempe Union High School

Dist., 158 F.3d 1022, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff’s allegations do not meet these

standards and are DISMISSED. 

CONCLUSION

This federal civil rights action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff may move

to reopen the action. Any motion to reopen, however, must be accompanied by an amended

complaint that contains allegations which meet the legal standards discussed in this order. 

The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of defendants and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 3, 2016 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03419-RS Document 19 Filed 05/03/16 Page 4 of 4