Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00961/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00961-1/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE ANTONIO MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. EBENEL, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05 961 AWI LJO P 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND (Doc. 1.)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SEND PLAINTIFF BLANK CIVIL RIGHTS

FORM 

 Jose Antonio Martinez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant

action on July 27, 2005, naming Jeanne Woodford, Director of Corrections, Warden Sullivan,

and Correctional Officers Ebenel and Ackerman as Defendants. 

A. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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

Case 1:05-cv-00961-LJO-GSA Document 10 Filed 11/01/06 Page 1 of 7
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

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

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, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding,

467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v.

Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

B. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

Plaintiff alleges that his First Amendment right of access to the courts was denied by

Defendant’s Ebenel and Ackerman deliberate interference with mail. Plaintiff states that he gave

these two Defendants 10 to 15 parcels of legal mail to be mailed out to Plaintiff’s attorney but

only three of then were reflected in the mail log. (Compl. at 2.) Plaintiff states that he requested

“supervisory staff” to question the Defendants “sworn statements defendants willfully,

knowingly, with motive and intent eluded questioning.” Id at 3. Plaintiff states that during this

time he was litigating a criminal conviction and that the two Defendants delayed or denied his

receiving an Opening brief in connection with his appeal. Plaintiff asserts generally that “the

Defendants” are using “retaliatory measures against Plaintiff for the exercising of rights to

administratively file 602 grievances on staff misconduct, and the furtherance of these grievances

to the appropriate court of law.” (Compl.at 3.) 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Woodford and Sullivan “learned of Plaintiff’s

Complaints . . . and failed to remedy or cure Plaintiff’s allegations.” Id. at 4. 

C. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Case 1:05-cv-00961-LJO-GSA Document 10 Filed 11/01/06 Page 2 of 7
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

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at

law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between

the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See

Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

(1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a

constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates

in another’s affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that

causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th

Cir. 1978). In order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, plaintiff must link each named

defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of plaintiff’s

federal rights.

1. Access to Courts

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Ebenel and Ackerman violated his First Amendment

right to access the courts by delaying or failing to mail his outgoing mail.

Prisoners have a fundamental right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343,

116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821-23, 97 S.Ct. 1491,

52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977). Prisoners also enjoy some degree of First Amendment rights in their legal

correspondence. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 568 (9th Cir.1987); White v. White, 886 F.2d

721, 723 (4th Cir.1989). However, only inmates who can show that they suffered actual injury in

their efforts to pursue a particular legal claim may assert claims based on a denial of this First

Amendment right. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351-53, 116 S.Ct. 2174 (actual injury consists of

frustration or impairment of a non-frivolous legal claim); see also Vandelft v. Moses, 31 F.3d

794, 796-97 (9th Cir.1994). A delay in filing a legal document without any attendant adverse

consequences does not constitute actual harm. Vigliotto v. Terry, 873 F.2d 1201, 1202 (9th

Cir.1989). 

Case 1:05-cv-00961-LJO-GSA Document 10 Filed 11/01/06 Page 3 of 7
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

 In this case, although Plaintiff alleges that at the time he had mail difficulties, i.e. getting

his legal mail to his attorney, he was litigating a criminal appeal. However, Plaintiff fails to

allege in the Complaint any actual harm from interference with his legal mail. As such, Plaintiff

has failed to state a First Amendment violation with respect to access to the courts. Lewis, 518

U.S. at 351-53, 116 S.Ct. 2174; King, 814 F.2d at 568; Vigliotto, 873 F.2d at 1202. 

2. Supervisory Liability

Supervisory personnel are generally not liable under Section 1983 for the actions of their

employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant holds a

supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional violation must

be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v.

Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). To state a claim

for relief under Section 1983 based on a theory of supervisory liability, Plaintiff must allege

some facts that would support a claim that supervisory Defendants either: personally participated

in the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights; knew of the violations and failed to act to

prevent them; or promulgated or “implemented a policy so deficient that the policy ‘itself is a

repudiation of constitutional rights’ and is ‘the moving force of the constitutional violation.’” 

Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal citations omitted); Taylor v. List,

880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Although federal pleading standards are broad, some facts

must be alleged to support claims under section 1983. See Leatherman v. Tarrant County

Narcotics Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168 (1993). 

In this case, Plaintiff makes general conclusory allegations that Defendants Woodford and

Sullivan were “aware” of his mail problems but he alleges no specific facts to support this

conclusion. Nor does Plaintiff allege any facts indicating that Defendants personally participated

in the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights or promulgated or “implemented a policy so

deficient that the policy ‘itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights’ and is ‘the moving force

of the constitutional violation.’” Hansen v. Black at 646. Plaintiff’s allegations are purely

conclusory and appear to attempt to hold these two Defendants liable solely on the basis of their

supervisory position. As such, Plaintiff fails to state a claim of supervisory liability. 

Case 1:05-cv-00961-LJO-GSA Document 10 Filed 11/01/06 Page 4 of 7
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

5

3. Retaliation

Plaintiff also makes a general and conclusory allegation that “the Defendants” are

retaliating against him for filing staff complaints.

An allegation of retaliation against a prisoner’s First Amendment right to file a prison

grievance is sufficient to support a claim under Section 1983. Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283,

1288 (9 Cir. 2003. "Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation th

entails five elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an

inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner's protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the

inmate's exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a

legitimate correctional goal." Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567 (9th Cir.2005) (citations

omitted). 

In this case, Plaintiff again makes a general allegation without supporting facts that he is

being retaliated against. Moreover, Plaintiff fails to link any named Defendant to an act or

omission giving rise to such a violation. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to allege a cognizable

retaliation claim. 

4. Prison Mail Regulations

As noted above, prisoners have "...a First Amendment right to send and receive mail."

Witherow v. Paff, 52 F.3d 264, 265 (9 Cir. 1995). Prison regulations relating to the regulation of

th

incoming mail are analyzed under the Turner reasonableness standard set forth in Turner v. Safley,

482 U.S. 78, 89-91 (1987). Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 413-14 (1989). The regulation is

valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. Turner, 482 U.S. at 89. In

determining the reasonableness of the regulation, court must consider the following factors: (1)

whether there is a "valid, rational connection between the regulation and the legitimate government

interest put forward to justify it," (2) "whether there are alternative means of exercising the right,"

(3) the impact that the "accommodation of the asserted constitutional right will have on guards and

other inmates," and (4) "the absence of ready alternatives." Turner, 482 U.S. at 89-90.

In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the regulations in place concerning legal mail are

inadequate. However, Plaintiff alleges no facts indicating that the regulations are unconstitutional

Case 1:05-cv-00961-LJO-GSA Document 10 Filed 11/01/06 Page 5 of 7
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

6

and does not link any of Defendants as those who promulgated or enforced the regulation. Plaintiff’s

allegations are purely conclusory and such generality is insufficient to state a cognizable claim for

relief. 

D. CONCLUSION

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain any claims upon which relief can

be granted under § 1983 against any of the Defendants. The Court will provide Plaintiff with time

to file an Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies identified above should he wish to do so. 

Plaintiff must demonstrate in the Amended Complaint how the conditions complained of

resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. See, Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9 Cir. th

1980). The Amended Complaint must specifically state how each Defendant is involved. Further,

there can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection

between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423, U.S. 362 (1976);

May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9 Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9 Cir. th th

1978). 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 15-220 requires that an Amended Complaint be

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an Amended Complaint

supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9 Cir. 1967). Once an th

Amended Complaint is filed, the original Complaint no longer serves any function in the case.

Therefore, in an Amended Complaint, as in an original Complaint, each claim and the involvement

of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The Amended Complaint should be clearly and

boldly titled “AMENDED COMPLAINT,” reference the appropriate case number, and be an original

signed under penalty of perjury. 

E. ORDER

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to SEND Plaintiff a blank civil rights complaint

form;

2. The Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. WITHIN THIRTY (30) days

from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL: 

Case 1:05-cv-00961-LJO-GSA Document 10 Filed 11/01/06 Page 6 of 7
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

7

a. File an Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court

in this Order, or

b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file an Amended

Complaint and pursue the action but instead wishes to voluntary dismiss the

case. See, Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1).

Plaintiff is forewarned that his failure to comply with this Order may result in a

Recommendation that the Complaint be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00961-LJO-GSA Document 10 Filed 11/01/06 Page 7 of 7