Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02128/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02128-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES ARTHUR HAROLSON,

NO. CIV. S-04-2128 LKK/PAN P

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

JIM POPE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, James Harolson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se,

has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order

No. 262. The magistrate judge recommended that this action be

dismissed for failure to state a claim. For the reasons set forth

in this order, the court adopts the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendation. 

As the magistrate judge notes, to state a claim under 42

U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must allege that defendant deprived him

Case 2:04-cv-02128-LKK -PAN Document 9 Filed 08/05/05 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

1 Plaintiff’s complaint in this action does not make clear

the subject of his small claims suit, requiring further

investigation on the part of this court. 

2 The Supreme Court noted that “impairment of any other

litigating capacity is simply one of the incidental (and perfectly

constitutional) consequences of conviction and incarceration.” 

Lewis, 518 U.S. at 355.

2

of a right secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United

States while acting under color of state law. See West v. Atkins,

487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988). Plaintiff asserts that members of the

Shasta County Marshal’s and Sheriff’s offices interfered with his

ability to pursue a small claims action in a Shasta County Court

because they did not arrive to take him to court. This court has

confirmed with the Shasta County Small Claims division that

plaintiff’s small claims action is related to property which was

allegedly stolen from him and a cash loan, and thus is not related

to his conviction or his conditions of confinement.1 Plaintiff

does not have a constitutional right to pursue such an action.

The Ninth Circuit has explained that a prisoner has a right

of access to the courts to litigate only claims which challenge his

subsequent conviction, or concerns the conditions of a his

confinement. Simmons v. Sacramento Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156,

1160 (9th Cir. 2003)(citing Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 341 (1996)).2

Because plaintiff’s small claims action is wholly unrelated to his

conviction and the conditions of his confinement, plaintiff does

not have a constitutional right of access to pursue such a claim.

////

////

Case 2:04-cv-02128-LKK -PAN Document 9 Filed 08/05/05 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

3

Accordingly, this matter is DISMISSED for failure to state a

claim upon which relief can be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 4, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-02128-LKK -PAN Document 9 Filed 08/05/05 Page 3 of 3