Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00933/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00933-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

GONZALO ARAMBULA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

J. TANGEN, Correctional Officer,

ET AL.,

Defendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-0933 CW (PR)

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT

MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT,

DISMISSING ACTION, AND

DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS

STATUS

(Docket nos. 2, 6)

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Gonzalo Arambula is a prisoner of the State of

California who is incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison

(SVSP). He has filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 and seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Venue is

proper in this Court because the injuries complained of occurred in

Monterey County, which is located within the Northern District of

California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391; 28 U.S.C. § 84.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any

case in which a prisoner seeks 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 that 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. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).

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 
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 1A plaintiff may amend his complaint once as a matter of course at

any time before a responsive pleading is served. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

15(a). Accordingly, his motion is DENIED as moot.

2

(2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting

under the color of State law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48

(1988). "'[A] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to

state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can

prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle

him to relief.'" Terracom v. Valley National Bank, 49 F.3d 555, 558

(9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46

(1957)). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri

v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).

DISCUSSION

In his complaint and "Motion for Amended Complaint"1

 Plaintiff,

who is a diabetic, asserts that on July 2, 2004, while in a

wheelchair, he went to the SVSP medical clinic to obtain a blood

sugar check. As appears to be his ongoing practice, he signed a

medical refusal form, CDC Form 7225, refusing medical treatment

(i.e., insulin). He alleges that correctional officer J. Tangen

confiscated Plaintiff's copy of the refusal form by placing his hand

on his pepper spray as an implied threat when taking the form. 

Plaintiff claims that confiscation of his copy violated his

constitutional rights.

At second level review he was provided a copy of his form and

offered review of his health records with the option of taking

notes. He was told that he would have to pay for copies of his

other forms, just like everyone else. No evidence of staff

misconduct was found at the second or third levels of review.

Plaintiff wants to be provided with "every single copies of my
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

refusals," a reprimand to Tangen and $100,000.

Plaintiff alleges that under State law he is entitled to free

copies of his refusals to receive insulin treatment. Even if this

is so, a violation of State law does not necessarily amount to a

constitutional violation. The deprivation of a State created

liberty interest occurs only where State statutes or regulations

narrowly restrict the power of prison officials to impose the

deprivation, that is, give the inmate a kind of right to avoid it,

and where the liberty in question is one of "real substance." See

Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 477-87 (1995). In the latter

scenario "real substance" generally will be limited to freedom from

(1) restraint that imposes "atypical and significant hardship on the

inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life," id. at

484, or (2) State action that "will inevitably affect the duration

of [a] sentence," id. at 487. 

Recently, the Supreme Court clarified that "the touchstone of

the inquiry into the existence of a protected, state-created liberty

interest in avoiding restrictive conditions of confinement is not

the language of regulations regarding those conditions but the

nature of those conditions themselves 'in relation to the ordinary

incidents of prison life.'" Wilkinson v. Austin, 125 S. Ct. 2384,

2394 (2005) (quoting Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484). This inquiry

requires a factual comparison between conditions in the plaintiff's

former status and his new status, examining the hardship caused by

the challenged action in relation to the basic conditions of life as

a prisoner. Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 755 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Under the rationale of Sandin and Wilkinson the Court finds that

Plaintiff has no constitutional right to free photocopies of his

refusal forms because the denial of any State created right to such
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

4

copies does not amount to a significant hardship in relation to the

basic conditions of Plaintiff's life as a prisoner. 

Plaintiff's allegation of staff misconduct rising to the level

of an Eighth Amendment violation also is without merit. Even if

Defendant Tangen did place his hand on his pepper spray, thereby

leading Plaintiff to believe that Tangen was threatening him into

giving up his refusal form, allegations of mere threats are not

cognizable under § 1983. See Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th

Cir. 1987) (mere threat does not constitute constitutional wrong,

nor do allegations that naked threat was for purpose of denying

access to courts compel contrary result). 

The Court finds that the allegations in Plaintiff's complaint

and Motion for Amended Complaint fail to state a constitutionally

cognizable claim for relief as a matter of law and that leave to

amend would be futile.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 

1. The motion to amend the complaint is DENIED as moot. 

(Docket no. 6.)

2. The action is DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to

amend.

3. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 11/9/05

 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge