Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04707/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04707-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES CRAMER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants

_______________________________

_ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 04-4707 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”) proceeding pro se, filed the

above-titled civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By separate order filed

concurrently herewith, he has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

In the instant complaint, plaintiff claims that PBSP officials violated his constitutional

rights when, in 1996, they “validated” him as a gang member and placed him in administrative

segregation for an indefinite period. Plaintiff challenged these actions in a case filed a number

of years ago in this district, Cramer v. Gomez, et al., No. C 97-4510 MMC (PR). In that case,

plaintiff’s claims were found to be without merit, and summary judgment was granted in favor

of the defendants. The claims alleged in the instant complaint are, in the main, the same claims

as were raised in plaintiff’s previous action. A complaint that merely repeats pending or

previously litigated claims is frivolous and may be dismissed sua sponte. See Cato v. United

States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995); Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th

Cir. 1988). A complaint brought in forma pauperis and repeating the same factual allegations

Case 3:04-cv-04707-MMC Document 5 Filed 12/07/05 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

asserted in an earlier case, even if new defendants are added, is subject to dismissal as

duplicative. Id.; Van Meter v. Morgan, 518 F.2d 366, 368 (8th Cir. 1975). Moreover, under

the doctrine of res judicata, the judgment in plaintiff’s earlier-filed case precludes him from

challenging, even on a new legal theory, the gang validation and placement in administrative

segregation he challenged in that earlier case. See Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147,

153 (1979); C.D. Anderson & Co., Inc. v. Lemos, 832 F.2d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 1987);

McClain v. Apodaca, 793 F.2d 1031, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 1986). 

The new allegations in plaintiff’s complaint concern the processing of his

administrative grievances, and his continued placement in administrative segregation since

1996. The alleged failure to properly process administrative grievances does not state a

cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, because there is no constitutional right to a prison

administrative appeal or grievance system. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir.

2003); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Buckley v. Barlow, 997

F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff’s claim that his retention in administrative

segregation since 1996 violates his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual

punishment also fails. "[T]he transfer of an inmate to less amenable and more restrictive

quarters for nonpunitive reasons is well within the terms of confinement ordinarily

contemplated by a prison sentence." Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 468 (1983). An

indeterminate sentence in administrative segregation, without more, does not constitute cruel

and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Anderson v. County of Kern,

45 F.3d 1310, 1315-16 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Toussaint v. Yockey, 722 F.2d 1490, 1494

n.6 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding usual hardships associated with administrative segregation

insufficient to state Eighth Amendment claim). 

Finally, plaintiff appears to be claiming that prison officials have not provided him with

all of the procedural protections to which he is entitled in connection with the periodic

hearings at which prison officials have considered whether to continue to house him in

administrative segregation. In granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment in plaintiff’s

prior case, the Court found prison officials had not deprived him of due process in connection

Case 3:04-cv-04707-MMC Document 5 Filed 12/07/05 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

with periodic review hearings. It is not clear from the instant complaint whether plaintiff is

challenging the same hearings that he unsuccessfully challenged in his prior case, or whether

since such time there have been additional hearings that he wishes to challenge. To the extent

plaintiff raises claims concerning matters occurring after his prior case, the claims are neither

duplicative nor barred by res judicata. Accordingly, the Court hereby DISMISSES, WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND, plaintiff’s claims that he was deprived of his right to due process at

hearings in which his placement in administrative segregation was reviewed. 

Within thirty (30) days of the date this order is filed, plaintiff may file an AMENDED

COMPLAINT in which plaintiff clearly sets forth when the hearings of which he complains

took place. The amended complaint shall include in the caption both the case number of this

action (No. C 04-4707 MMC (PR)), and the phrase "AMENDED COMPLAINT." The

amended complaint supersedes the initial complaint and may not incorporate by

reference any parts of the original complaint; plaintiff must include in the amended

complaint all the allegations and claims he wishes to present. If plaintiff fails to timely

file an amended complaint in conformity with this order that cures the deficiencies

noted, the complaint will be dismissed.

For the reasons described above, the remainder of plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED

for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. 

It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court

informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion. 

Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(b), for failure to prosecute.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 7, 2005

_________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-04707-MMC Document 5 Filed 12/07/05 Page 3 of 3