Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-02877/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-02877-0/pdf.json

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

Order of Dismissal

N:\Pro - Se\7.27.2007\07-02877 Weaver2877_dismissal.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIE WEAVER,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

RICH CREEK, 

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-02877 JW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner and frequent litigant in this Court, has

filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks to

proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Docket No. 3)

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). The court must identify cognizable

Case 5:07-cv-02877-JW Document 4 Filed 07/27/07 Page 1 of 3
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

Order of Dismissal

N:\Pro - Se\7.27.2007\07-02877 Weaver2877_dismissal.wpd 2

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 from such relief.” Id. §

1915A(b). 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 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. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims

Plaintiff claims that defendant Correctional Officer Rich Creek violated his

rights to assist other inmates when Officer Creek confiscated confidential legal mail

which plaintiff was holding for another inmate. Plaintiff cites California code

regulations in support of this alleged right to assist other inmates. Plaintiff

concludes that defendant’s action constitutes a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s

prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. 

In its prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment,” the Eighth Amendment

places restraints on prison officials, who may not, for example, use excessive force

against prisoners. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992). The

Amendment also imposes duties on these officials, who must provide all prisoners

with the basic necessities of life such as food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical

care and personal safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994);

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 199-200

(1989)). 

A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment when two requirements are

met: (1) the deprivation alleged must be, objectively, sufficiently serious, see

Case 5:07-cv-02877-JW Document 4 Filed 07/27/07 Page 2 of 3
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

Order of Dismissal

N:\Pro - Se\7.27.2007\07-02877 Weaver2877_dismissal.wpd 3

Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)), and (2)

the prison official possesses a sufficiently culpable state of mind, see id. (citing

Wilson, 501 U.S. at 297).

Plaintiff’s claim is without merit. It can hardly be said that the confiscation

of mail, much less someone else’s mail, is a deprivation of a basic necessity of life

such as food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care and personal safety to

constitute an Eighth Amendment violation. The confiscation of legal mail,

particularly that of another inmate, is not objectively, sufficiently serious. See

Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. Since plaintiff has failed to meet the first requirement, it is

not necessary to inquire into defendant’s state of mind when he allegedly

confiscated the mail. Id.

Even if plaintiff’s claim is liberally construed as a taking of legal mail to

deprive plaintiff of his right of access to courts, see Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343,

350 (1996), it would still fail. Any such claim lies solely with the inmate to whom

the mail actually belonged. Plaintiff does not have standing to complain about the

deprivations of the constitutional rights of others. See Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S.

400, 410 (1991). 

 Accordingly, this complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this claim is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915A. The clerk shall terminate all pending motions as moot. No fee is due.

DATED: July 25, 2007 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-02877-JW Document 4 Filed 07/27/07 Page 3 of 3