Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-05762/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-05762-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT LEE JENKINS, JR.,

Plaintiff, 

 v.

TED BLOOM; S. CAMPAIGNE; K.

THOMPSON; D. CHAMBERLAIN;

K. HOFFMAN;

Defendants. /

No. C 19-5762 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner, filed this pro se civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. §

1983 against officials at the California Training Facility. He is granted leave to proceed in

forma pauperis in a separate order. For the reasons discussed below, the complaint is dismissed

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

ANALYSIS

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). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims

which 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. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro

se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699

Case 3:19-cv-05762-WHA Document 4 Filed 11/14/19 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

2

(9th Cir. 1990).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; the

statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds

upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). 

Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a

plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than

labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not

do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative

level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A

complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id.

at 1974. 

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 deprivation 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 alleges that defendant Bloom falsified disciplinary charges against him in

retaliation for plaintiff having filed an administrative grievance against Bloom. A prisoner’s

First Amendment rights are violated if he is retaliated against for using administrative grievance

procedures. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005). The attachments to the

complaint, however, establish that Bloom filed disciplinary charges before plaintiff filed the

administrative grievance. Specifically, Bloom filed the disciplinary charges on April 3, 2019,

whereas plaintiff filed the administrative grievance — which complained about Bloom referring

plaintiff to mental health services — on April 11, 2109 (see Pet. Ex. A at 5; Pet. Ex. C at 3). 

Bloom could not have retaliated against plaintiff for an action that plaintiff had not yet taken. 

Plaintiff’s allegations, even when liberally construed, indicate that Bloom did not retaliate

Case 3:19-cv-05762-WHA Document 4 Filed 11/14/19 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

3

against him for exercising his First Amendment rights, and therefore do not state a cognizable

retaliation claim. 

Plaintiff claims that the other defendants acted “in cahoots” with Bloom and covered up

his retaliatory actions. These other defendants reviewed and granted in part and denied in part

plaintiff’s administrative grievance regarding Bloom’s allegedly retaliatory disciplinary charges. 

Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against these defendants is not cognizable because it is based upon

the claim that Bloom retaliated against plaintiff, which, for the reasons discussed, is not

cognizable. Plaintiff also does not state a cognizable claim against these defendants for

improperly processing or denying his administrative grievances. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334

F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (there is no constitutional right to a prison administrative appeal or

grievance system),

For the reasons discussed, plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted. Any attempt at amendment would be futile because the

allegations in the complaint and the attachments thereto establish that defendants did not retaliate

against him for exercising his First Amendment rights. Therefore, leave to amend is not granted. 

 CONCLUSION

For the reasons set out above, this case is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted. The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November , 2019. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14

Case 3:19-cv-05762-WHA Document 4 Filed 11/14/19 Page 3 of 3