Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03057/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03057-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELMER EUGENE WALKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; 

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-3057 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

Elmer Eugene Walker, formerly a prisoner at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad,

has filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint is now before the

court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A.

BACKGROUND

Walker's complaint concerns events that occurred while he was incarcerated at the

Correctio nal Training Facility in Soledad. He alleges in his complaint that personal property in

his cell was damaged and destroyed during a cell search on March 7, 2004. He further alleges

their legal materials had been looked through and intermixed during the cell search. Walker also

complains of personal property damage/destruction when he was moved on July 21, 2004 and

when he was moved on September 9, 2004.

Case 3:05-cv-03057-SI Document 8 Filed 12/20/05 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

Walker further alleges that the prison was on lockdown status for 14 days by order of the

warden and director of the department of corrections. As a result of the lockdown, Walker was

denied an opportunity to shower, obtain clean bedding, clean towels, and clean clothing for three

weeks. 

Walker also alleges that he filed inmate appeals about the damage to and theft of his

property. His inmate appeals were unsuccessful.

DISCUSSION

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See

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. See id. at

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a

right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487

U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

This action is frivolous. The property claims repeat the claims Walker made in a Walker

v. Director Woodford, No. C 04-4786 SI ("the 2004 action"), which was dismissed several months

before this action was filed. Walker's filing of a complaint alleging the same property

damage/destruction claims that the court earlier dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted is frivolous. See Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988)

(duplicative or repetitious litigation of virtually identical causes of action is subject to dismissal

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 as malicious). 

Walker's claims about the lockdown also are frivolous because they repeat the claims

Case 3:05-cv-03057-SI Document 8 Filed 12/20/05 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

asserted in the 2004 action. In the 2004 action, the court dismissed the original filing with leave

to amend the lockdown claims, explaining that Walker had to identify the defendant(s) who

allegedly caused the problem. The court dismissed the claim in the 2004 action because he did

not cure that deficiency in the complaint he eventually filed and did not show a physical injury as

required under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). Walker's current complaint is frivolous in that is repeats

the same claims that suffer one of the same defects (i.e., no physical injury) identified by the court

when it dismissed the 2004 action. See Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021. 

 To the extent Walker is attempting to assert a claim about the inmate appeals process, that

claim also would be frivolous because that was raised and rejected in the 2004 action.

Walker recently filed a document entitled "T.R.O." in which he stated that he curently is

being denied access to his eyeglasses while in administrative segregation at Mule Creek State

Prison. To the extent Walker wishes to complain about the conditions of confinement at Mule

Creek State Prison, he should file a civil rights complaint in the Eastern District of California,

because that is the district in which that prison is located. Walker cannot amend the current

complaint, which concerned conditions of confinement at the Correctional Training Facility in

Soledad, to add new claims about unrelated conditions of confinement at a different prison in a

different judicial district.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this action is dismissed as frivolous in that the complaint

repeats claims presented in an earlier action that was dismissed several months before this action

was filed. The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 19, 2005 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03057-SI Document 8 Filed 12/20/05 Page 3 of 3