Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00830/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00830-2/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH WILSON NORWOOD,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. PINA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00830-OWW-SMS PC

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITH

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A

CLAIM, AND DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

(Doc. 13)

Screening Order

I. Screening Requirement 

Plaintiff Kenneth Wilson Norwood, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 11, 2009. On December 4, 2009,

the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed May 27, 2009, with leave to amend.1

Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on December 23, 2009.

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

Plaintiff’s original complaint was stricken because Plaintiff failed to sign it.

1

1

Case 1:09-cv-00830-OWW -SMS Document 14 Filed 01/15/10 Page 1 of 4
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

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader

is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported bymere conclusory statements,

do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at

1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal

conclusion are not. Id. at 1949.

II. Summary of Allegations

In his first amended complaint, Plaintiff, who is currentlyhoused at Kern ValleyState Prison,

brought suit against Lieutenant Pina, Sergeant Sumaya, and Captain Jennings for violating his

constitutional rights while he was housed at California State Prison-Corcoran. Plaintiff alleged that

his rights under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and

under the Eighth Amendment were violated when he was charged with and found guilty of

disobeying a peace office by refusing a cellmate. 

In his amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Pina violated his right to due

process by failing to complywith state regulations governing disciplinary hearings. Plaintiff alleges

a protected libertyinterest arising from the regulations, and from the deprivation of propertyand yard

privileges and other rights enjoyed by other inmates. 

III. Due Process Claim

As the Court previously informed Plaintiff, in order to invoke the protection of the Due

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Plaintiff must first establish the existence of a liberty

interest for which the protection is sought. Liberty interests may arise from the Due Process Clause

itself or from state law, Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221, 125 S.Ct. 2384 (2005), but the Due

Process Clause itself does not confer on Plaintiff a liberty interest in avoiding “more adverse

conditions of confinement,” id.; Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 466-68, 103 S.Ct. 864 (1983). 

2

Case 1:09-cv-00830-OWW -SMS Document 14 Filed 01/15/10 Page 2 of 4
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

“[T]he 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 at 223 (quoting Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293

(1995)). State-created libertyinterests are limited to freedom from restraint which “imposes atypical

and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin,

515 U.S. at 484. 

In his second amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the California Code of Regulations

creates a liberty interest, of which he was deprived when Defendant failed to follow the regulations

by refusing to consider Plaintiff’s evidence and by using evidence that was “illegal” and irrelevant. 

(Doc. 13, court record p. 4.) Further, Plaintiff alleges that he was deprived of his property, yard time,

and other privileges enjoyed by other inmates. 

Plaintiff’s allegations do not demonstrate the existence of a federally protected liberty

interest. Plaintiff may not rely on state regulations to demonstrate the existence of a protected

interest, and the loss of property and yard privileges is not a condition that rises to the level of

atypical and significant hardship. Wilkinson at 223; Sandin at 484. Because Plaintiff was not

deprived of a protected liberty interest, his due process claim fails as a matter of law. 

IV. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted

under section 1983. Plaintiff was previously granted leave to amend to cure the deficiency in this

claim but was unable to do so, and further leave to amend is not warranted. Noll v. Carlson, 809

F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action is dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim under section

1983; and 

///

///

///

///

3

Case 1:09-cv-00830-OWW -SMS Document 14 Filed 01/15/10 Page 3 of 4
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. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 15, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

Case 1:09-cv-00830-OWW -SMS Document 14 Filed 01/15/10 Page 4 of 4