Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01164/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01164-0/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

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEAN E. BRAZIL, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

Correctional Officer G. A. RICE;

Correctional Officer T. CLEARY;

Sergeant P. J. FRUDDEN; Captain F.

G. AHL; Warden A. P. KANE; Appeals

Coordinator W. B. CHILDRESS; Director

of Corrections JEANNE S.

WOODFORD; and Senior Special Agent

MARK MIRVISS,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-1164 (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a state prisoner. In the initial review order

plaintiff’s claims against defendant Rice were dismissed with leave to amend. His claims

against the other defendants were dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff has amended.

In the complaint, plaintiff contended that Rice, a correctional officer, habitually failed

to pick up and deliver legal mail to inmates until the end of his shift. Plaintiff alleges that he

repeatedly complained to Rice about this, and threatened to sue him. On August 16, 2004,

Rice delivered incoming legal mail right at the end of his shift, and plaintiff refused it and

again threatened to sue Rice. Rice then allegedly threatened to have plaintiff moved. 

Plaintiff “dared him to further violate [plaintiff’s] rights.” Plaintiff wrote up a grievance and

the next day showed it to Rice. Rice then left a Post-it asking that plaintiff be moved. 

Plaintiff does not say why, but he was not moved. 

In the initial review order, the court concluded that although plaintiff had not stated a

Case 4:05-cv-01164-PJH Document 17 Filed 05/24/06 Page 1 of 2
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

claim that Rice’s actions were a violation of his right of access to the courts, he might be

able to state a claim that the threat and request to move plaintiff were retaliation for

plaintiff’s exercise of his First Amendment free speech rights. However, plaintiff had not

alleged that Rice’s actions had no legitimate penological purpose nor that facts showing

that he was harmed, see Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005)

(requirements for retaliation claim), so the claims against Rice were dismissed with leave to

amend. 

The court noted in the initial review order that on the facts plaintiff had pleaded it

appeared that Rice had a legitimate penological objective, namely that of separating Rice

and plaintiff. In the amendment plaintiff attempted to meet this by contending that Rice

occasionally works in the area to which he might have been transferred, and that Rice

could always be assigned there at some point in the future. That is not enough. It is still

clear on the version in the amended complaint that there was a legitimate penological

objective for Rice’s actions, namely to at least reduce, if not eliminate, contact between a

prisoner and a guard who were in conflict. That is, plaintiff has pleaded facts which show

he does not have a claim. See Weisbuch v. County of Los Angeles, 119 F.3d 778, 783 n.1

(9th Cir. 1997) (facts pleaded by plaintiff may show that he or she has failed to state a

claim; a plaintiff may plead herself out of court). Because plaintiff has amended once and

continues to allege facts showing that he does not have a claim, the dismissal will be

without further leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

The complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The clerk

shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2006.

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.05\BRAZIL164.DSM2 

Case 4:05-cv-01164-PJH Document 17 Filed 05/24/06 Page 2 of 2