Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01212/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01212-2/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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Elliott E. Rollins, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Derral Adams, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV08-01212-ROS

ORDER

Defendants seek dismissal of two of the three causes of action remaining after

screening of the complaint. For the following reasons, the motion will be granted.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Elliot Rollins is an inmate at the California State Prison, Corcoran.

According to his complaint, on August 28, 2007 Plaintiff gave various legal documents to

another inmate for photocopying at the prison library. Upon arriving at the library, the other

inmate gave Plaintiff’s documents to Defendant Gomez, a correctional officer. Defendant

Gomez gave Plaintiff’s documents to Defendant Guzman, the legal librarian. Instead of

copying the documents, Defendant Guzman confiscated them upon learning they belonged

to Plaintiff, instead of the inmate who brought them to the library. The inmate eventually

was kicked out of the library by Defendant Gomez and Defendant Sullivan, another

correctional officer. 

Case 1:08-cv-01212-ROS Document 18 Filed 03/18/10 Page 1 of 3
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 -

Plaintiff submitted various requests for the return of his documents. These requests

were denied. Plaintiff now claims the confiscation of his documents constituted retaliation

against him for filing administrative appeals and threatening to file legal action. Plaintiff also

claims the confiscation of documents violated his right to equal protection and denied him

access to the courts. Defendants seeks dismissal of the retaliation and equal protection

claims. Defendants also seek dismissal of Defendants Gomez and Sullivan.

ANALYSIS

1. Motion to Dismiss Standard

“[F]or a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, the non-conclusory ‘factual

content,’ and reasonable inferences from that content, must be plausibly suggestive of a claim

entitling the plaintiff to relief.” Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th

Cir. 2009) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)). All factual allegations

must be accepted as true but legal conclusions need not.

2. The Retaliation Claim Must Be Dismissed

“A prisoner suing prison officials under section 1983 for retaliation must allege that

he was retaliated against for exercising his constitutional rights and that the retaliatory action

does not advance legitimate penological goals, such as preserving institutional order and

discipline.” Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815-16 (9th Cir. 1994). Plaintiff’s retaliation

claim can succeed only if he “show[s] a causal connection between a defendant’s retaliatory

animus and subsequent injury.” Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 259 (2006). According

to the complaint, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff because he filed an “administrative

602 appeal/grievance” and he threatened “to file a lawsuit against them.” (Doc. 1 at 6). But

the complaint does not identify any administrative appeal or threatened lawsuit prior to the

documents being confiscated. The confiscation could not have constituted retaliation for acts

not yet taken. The retaliation claim must be dismissed.

Case 1:08-cv-01212-ROS Document 18 Filed 03/18/10 Page 2 of 3
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 -

3. The Equal Protection Claim Must Be Dismissed

A valid equal protection claim requires a showing “that the defendants acted with an

intent or purpose to discriminate against the plaintiff based upon membership in a protected

class.” Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff claims

Defendants denied him “equal protection of the laws by . . . arbitrarily confiscating and/or

destroying [his] property and locking [him] out of the prison law library and frustrating [him]

from having meaningful access to the courts.” (Doc. 1 at 9). These allegations do not

identify the “protected class” which Plaintiff belongs to nor do they identify how Plaintiff

was treated differently than other similarly situated individuals. The complaint does not

alleged sufficient facts to support an equal protection claim.

4. Defendants Gomez and Sullivan Must Be Dismissed

After dismissal of the retaliation and equal protection claims, the only remaining cause

of action is denial of access to the courts. That claim is premised on Defendant Guzman

confiscating Plaintiff’s legal documents. Plaintiff does not identify any actions taken by

Defendants Gomez and Sullivan that support this claim. According to the complaint,

Defendant Gomez “didn’t want to get involved” in Plaintiff’s dispute with Defendant

Guzman. In fact, the only conduct by Defendants Gomez and Sullivan was removing from

the law library the inmate who had brought Plaintiff’s documents to the library. These

allegations are not sufficient to support claims against Defendants Gomez and Sullivan. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) is GRANTED. Defendants

Gomez and Sullivan shall be dismissed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Defendant Guzman shall file his answer to the sole

remaining count no later than fourteen days after entry of this Order. 

DATED this 18th day of March, 2010.

Case 1:08-cv-01212-ROS Document 18 Filed 03/18/10 Page 3 of 3