Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01721/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01721-2/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

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL W. AUGUST, No. CIV S-06-1721-LKK-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

JOHN DOVEY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1).

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

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

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

This means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne,

Case 2:06-cv-01721-LKK -CMK Document 9 Filed 10/03/06 Page 1 of 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

2

84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are

satisfied if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds

upon which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff

must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which

support the claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it

is impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are

vague and conclusory. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff names the following as defendants: Dovey, Tilton, Veal, Martinez,

Mirich, Cry, Moreno, and Carroll. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. 

Plaintiff claims that he was falsely accused of placing a weapon in another

inmate’s cell. He states that he was at his prison job at the time. Plaintiff states that, after being

placed in administrative segregation for the weapon incident, he filed an inmate grievance. 

However, according to plaintiff, the grievance was improperly dismissed. Plaintiff submitted

another grievance, which was rejected at all levels of review. Plaintiff asserts numerous

violations with respect to the prison disciplinary process. Specifically, plaintiff states:

The actions of Defendants DOVEY, TILTON, VEAL,

MARTINEZ, MIRICH, CARROLL, CRY, MOENO gives legitimacy to

denial of court access First Amendment and DUE PROCESS of appeals

rights and hearing procedures, thereby denying Fourteenth Amendment of

United States Constitution. 

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff states that defendants’ conduct violated his right to access to the courts. 

Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343,

346 (1996); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977); Bradley v. Hall, 64 F.3d 1276, 1279

(9th Cir. 1995) (discussing the right in the context of prison grievance procedures). This right

Case 2:06-cv-01721-LKK -CMK Document 9 Filed 10/03/06 Page 2 of 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

3

requires prison officials to “assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal

papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons

trained in the law.” Bounds, 430 U.S. at 828. The right, however, only requires that prisoners

have the capability of bringing challenges to sentences or conditions of confinement. See Lewis,

518 U.S. at 356-57. Moreover, the right is limited to non-frivolous criminal appeals, habeas

corpus actions, and § 1983 suits. See id. at 353 n.3 & 354-55. Therefore, the right of access to

the courts is only a right to present these kinds of claims to the court, and not a right to discover

claims or to litigate them effectively once filed. See id. at 354-55.

As a jurisdictional requirement flowing from the standing doctrine, the prisoner

must allege an actual injury. See id. at 349. “Actual injury” is prejudice with respect to

contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or present a

claim. See id. Delays in providing legal materials or assistance which result in prejudice are

“not of constitutional significance” if the delay is reasonably related to legitimate penological

purposes. Id. at 362. 

In this case, plaintiff has not alleged that he has suffered an actual injury. 

Specifically, he has not alleged that he was unable to meet a filing deadline or present a claim. 

In fact, plaintiff’s claim is based on the notion that, by frustrating the inmate grievance process,

defendants have denied him access to the courts. As stated above, such a claim cannot exist

where there is no actual injury. This defect in plaintiff’s complaint cannot be cured.

It is clear that the gravamen of plaintiff’s complaint is that prison officials have

violated his due process rights by frustrating the prison grievance process in various ways. For

example, plaintiff alleges that the disciplinary action was based on a false report that he placed a

weapon in a cell. Plaintiff also claims that defendants improperly relied on confidential

informants. The court finds that these allegations survive screening. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-01721-LKK -CMK Document 9 Filed 10/03/06 Page 3 of 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

4

III. CONCLUSION

Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be

cured by amending the complaint, plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of

the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed except as to his due process claim; and

2. This matter be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for issuance of such

orders as are appropriate to effect service of the complaint on defendants.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

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

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” 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).

DATED: October 2, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01721-LKK -CMK Document 9 Filed 10/03/06 Page 4 of 4