Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04906/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04906-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOHN SHAW, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SIMPSON, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-cv-04906-PJH 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND 

Re: Dkt. Nos. 7, 9, 10 

Plaintiff, a former state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. The original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend and plaintiff 

has filed objections (Docket No. 6) to the screening order that he requests be construed 

as an amended complaint. The court will review plaintiff’s filing. 

DISCUSSION 

I. 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 (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 

Case 4:15-cv-04906-PJH Document 11 Filed 12/09/15 Page 1 of 4
2 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

is and the grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (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, 550 

U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state 

a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme 

Court has recently explained the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal 

conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual 

allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their 

veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

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). 

II. LEGAL CLAIMS 

In the original complaint plaintiff alleged that he was denied access to the courts 

and defendants lied in declarations in a prior federal civil rights action. 

 Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts. See Lewis v. Casey, 

518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). To establish a 

claim for any violation of the right of access to the courts, the prisoner must prove that 

there was an inadequacy in the prison's legal access program that caused him an actual 

injury. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 350-55. To prove an actual injury, the prisoner must show 

that the inadequacy in the prison's program hindered his efforts to pursue a non-frivolous 

claim concerning his conviction or conditions of confinement. See id. at 354-55. 

Destruction or confiscation of legal work may violate an inmate’s right to access to 

Case 4:15-cv-04906-PJH Document 11 Filed 12/09/15 Page 2 of 4
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 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

the courts, see Vigliotto v. Terry, 873 F.2d 1201, 1202 (9th Cir. 1989), if plaintiff can 

establish actual injury, see Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1171 (9th Cir. 1989). A 

temporary deprivation of legal materials does not always rise to the level of a 

constitutional violation, however. See Vigliotto, 873 F.2d at 1202-03 (three days). 

The allegations in the amended complaint are difficult to discern and a brief 

discussion of plaintiff’s prior cases is necessary. In Shaw v. California, Case No. C 09-

0077 CW, plaintiff’s habeas petition was dismissed as unexhausted. In Shaw v. Diaz, 

Case No. C 13-1739 CW, plaintiff re-filed the habeas petition but it was dismissed as 

untimely. In Shaw v. Chang, Case No. C 13-2532 NC, plaintiff alleged that correctional 

officer Chang violated his right to access the court by confiscating plaintiff’s legal papers 

with respect to the habeas petition in Shaw v. California, Case No. C 09-0077 CW. 

Summary judgment was granted to Chang in Shaw v. Chang, Case No. C 13-2532 NC. 

In this case, plaintiff repeats the allegations against Chang, but this claim has 

already been denied on the merits. Plaintiff also names three defendants who worked 

with Chang and supplied declarations in the prior lawsuit, signed jail paperwork at the 

time of the incident, and denied inmate appeals. He argues that these defendants 

obstructed justice and denied plaintiff due process in the motion for summary judgment in 

the prior case. The exact nature of plaintiff’s allegations is not clear. To the extent he 

disagrees with the evidence presented in the prior case, that fails to present a federal 

claim. To the extent that plaintiff disagrees with the dismissal with leave to amend, he 

must file a second amended complaint that addresses the deficiencies discussed in this 

order. 

His allegation that these defendants lied in their declarations also fails to state a 

claim. A witness is absolutely immune from liability for his testimony in earlier state or 

federal court proceedings even if he committed perjury. See Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 

325, 329-46 (1983) (police officer witness at trial); Burns v. County of King, 883 F.2d 819 

(9th Cir. 1989) (social worker preparing affidavit for use at bail revocation proceeding). 

 To the extent he challenges the denial of inmate appeals; he is not entitled to 

Case 4:15-cv-04906-PJH Document 11 Filed 12/09/15 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

rel

gri

Ad

pla

co

co

mo

for

wit

late

this

an 

in 

(9t

cou

“No

fas

pu

Da

\\CA

ief because

evance sys

dams, 855 F

aintiff will be

mplaint he 

nstitutional 

1. The

otions for pe

r service Do

2. The

th the stand

er than Jan

s order and

amended c

it all the cla

th Cir. 1992

3. It is

urt informed

otice of Cha

shion. Failu

rsuant to F

IT IS S

ated: Decem

ANDOAK\Data\U

e there is no

stem. See 

F.2d 639, 6

e provided a

must clearl

rights. 

e motion to 

ermission to

ocket No. 9

e amended 

dards set fo

nuary 14, 2

d the words

complaint c

aims he wis

2). He may

s the plaintif

d of any ch

ange of Ad

ure to do so

ederal Rule

SO ORDER

mber 9, 201

sers\PJHALL\_p

o constitutio

Ramirez v.

40 (9th Cir.

an opportu

ly present h

screen pla

o appeal th

) are DENI

complaint 

orth above. 

2016, and m

s SECOND 

completely 

shes to pres

not incorpo

ff's respons

ange of ad

dress,” and

o may resul

e of Civil Pr

RED. 

15 

psp\2015\2015_0

4

onal right to

 Galaza, 33

. 1988). Th

nity to ame

his claims a

CONCLU

intiff’s objec

he dismissa

ED. 

is DISMISS

 The secon

must include

AMENDED

replaces th

sent. See F

orate mater

sibility to pro

dress by fil

d must com

lt in the dism

rocedure 41

04906_Shaw_v_S

o a prison a

34 F.3d 850

he amended

end. If plain

and describ

USION 

ctions (Doc

al with leave

SED with le

nd amende

e the captio

D COMPLA

he original c

Ferdik v. Bo

rial from the

osecute thi

ing a separ

mply with the

missal of th

1(b). 

__

PH

Un

Simpson_(PSP)\

administrat

0, 860 (9th 

d complain

ntiff files a s

be how defe

cket No. 10

e to amend 

eave to ame

d complain

on and civil 

AINT on the

complaint, p

onzelet, 963

e original c

s case. Pla

rate paper w

e court's ord

his action fo

__________

HYLLIS J. H

nited States

\15-cv-04906-PJ

ive appeal 

Cir. 2003);

t is dismiss

second ame

endants vio

) is GRANT

 (Docket No

end in acco

nt must be f

case numb

 first page. 

plaintiff mus

3 F.2d 1258

omplaint by

aintiff must 

with the cle

ders in a tim

or failure to 

_________

HAMILTON

s District Ju

JH-_dwlta2.docx

or 

Mann v. 

sed but 

ended 

lated his 

TED. The 

o. 7) and 

ordance 

filed no 

ber used in 

 Because 

st include 

8, 1262 

y reference

keep the 

erk headed 

mely 

prosecute 

______

N

udge 

e. 

Case 4:15-cv-04906-PJH Document 11 Filed 12/09/15 Page 4 of 4