Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00035/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00035-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICO HAYES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHRISTINE MILLIGAN,

Defendants.

 /

1: 05 CV F 0035 AWI DLB P

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff is a prisoner in federal custody at the Atwater Facility and is proceeding in forma

pauperis and pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of

Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil

rights by federal actors. Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s amended complaint filed March

31, 2005.

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

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are

legally "frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or

that seek 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). If the Court determines that the complaint fails to

state a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint

can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9 Cir. 2000) (en banc). th

Case 1:05-cv-00035-ALA Document 13 Filed 09/27/05 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

27

28

2

In the instant case, Plaintiff names as defendants Christine Milligan, Dee Lorance, and his

Case Manager Robert Brown. Plaintiff alleges that while conducting a disciplinary hearing,

defendant Lorance violated his right to a fair hearing by denying his right to call witnesses and

conducting a one-sided investigation. He alleges that as a result he lost time credits. He

contends that defendant Lorance also delayed the appeal process. He further alleges that

defendant Brown interviewed him and advised plaintiff of his right to appeal and advised

plaintiff that if he didn’t want to attend the hearing he didn’t have to and thereby misled him into

not attending the hearing. Plaintiff alleges that Brown also violated the policy of having two

staff members present when plaintiff signed a government document.

A. Failure to Link Defendant Milligan to Specific Conduct.

Plaintiff names defendant Milligan as a defendant but does not discuss this defendant in

the body of his complaint. The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or

causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States. . . to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution. . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at

law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 42

U.S.C. § 1983.

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 complaint is made." Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Plaintiff has failed to make any specific allegations against defendant Milligan. The court will

provide plaintiff the opportunity to amend his complaint, if, after reviewing the aforementioned

legal standards, plaintiff believes in good faith that he has a cognizable claim for relief against

Case 1:05-cv-00035-ALA Document 13 Filed 09/27/05 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

27

28

3

defendant Milligan. 

B. Disciplinary Hearing

Similarly, the court finds that plaintiff’s allegations that defendants deprived him of his

procedural due process rights with regard to his disciplinary hearing do not give rise to a

cognizable section 1983 claim. Pursuant to the rule announced in Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S.

641 (1997), a claim challenging the procedural aspects of a prison disciplinary hearing is not

cognizable under section 1983 if the nature of the inmate’s allegations are such that, if proven,

would necessarily imply the invalidity of the result of the prison disciplinary hearing, unless the

prisoner can demonstrate that the result of the disciplinary hearing has been previously

invalidated. Id. at 648; see Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024 (9th Cir. 1997)(applying

Balisok to dismiss action in which a prisoner sought monetary relief based on allegations that

prison officials relied on false information to find him ineligible for parole); Gotcher v. Wood,

122 F.3d 39 (1997), on remand from 520 U.S. 1238 (1997)(holding that prisoner’s claim for

compensatory damages was not cognizable under section 1983). 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the result of the hearing has been invalidated. 

Therefore, plaintiff’s claim that his rights to procedural due process were violated cannot

proceed.

Further, prisoners have no constitutional right to an inmate grievance system. Olim v.

Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 249 (1983). Thus, the non-existence of, or the failure of prison

officials to properly implement an administrative appeals process within the prison system does

not raise constitutional concerns. Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993); Flick v.

Alba, 932 F.2d 728 (8th Cir. 1991). "[A prison] grievance procedure is a procedural right only, it

does not confer any substantive right upon the inmates.” Buckley, 997 F.2d at 495 (citing Azeez

v. DeRobertis, 568 F. Supp. 8, 10 (N.D. Ill. 1982); see also Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640

(9th Cir. 1988). “Hence, it does not give rise to a protected liberty interest requiring the

procedural protections envisioned by the Fourteenth Amendment." Azeez v. DeRobertis, 568 F.

Supp. at 10; Spencer v. Moore, 638 F. Supp. 315, 316 (E.D. Mo. 1986). Specifically, failure to

process a grievance does not state a constitutional violation. Buckley, 997 F.2d at 495. Thus, a

Case 1:05-cv-00035-ALA Document 13 Filed 09/27/05 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

27

28

4

prison official’s involvement and actions in reviewing prisoner’s administrative appeal cannot

serve as the basis for liability under a § 1983 action. Buckley, 997 F.2d at 495. The alleged

delay of plaintiff’s appeal process by defendant Lorance does not give rise to a cognizable claim

for relief under section 1983. 

C. Conclusion

Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain cognizable claims for relief against any of the

named defendants and therefore must be dismissed in its entirety. The Court will, however, grant

leave to file an amended complaint. Failure to cure the deficiencies will result in dismissal of

this action without leave to amend.

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). 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 complaint is dismissed; 

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a section 1983 complaint form

for use by pro se prisoners;

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an

Case 1:05-cv-00035-ALA Document 13 Filed 09/27/05 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

27

28

5

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 "Amended Complaint"; plaintiff must file

an original and two copies of the amended complaint; failure to file an amended complaint in

accordance with this order will result in dismissal of this action for failure to state a claim and

failure to comply with the court’s order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 26, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00035-ALA Document 13 Filed 09/27/05 Page 5 of 5