Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01195/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01195-1/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

WILLIAM EHLY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

J. NAVARRO,

Defendant

Case No. 1:13 cv 01195 GSA PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND 

GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE 

AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE

IN THIRTY DAYS

I. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to proceed before a magistrate 

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).1 

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 dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or 

 

1

Plaintiff filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate judge on September 9, 2013 (ECF No. 6).

Case 1:13-cv-01195-SAB Document 7 Filed 11/21/14 Page 1 of 5
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

appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

“Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited 

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 

U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), 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). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s 

claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. However, “the 

liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 

490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not 

supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union 

Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 

(9th Cir. 1982)).

II. Plaintiff’s Claim

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (CDCR) at Pleasant Valley State Prison, brings this civil rights action against 

Defendant J. Navarro, a Correctional Counselor employed by the CDCR at Pleasant Valley. 

Plaintiff claims that Defendant impeded his access to the courts in violation of the First 

Amendment. 

Plaintiff alleges that on December 13, 2012, the day before a scheduled telephone 

conference with a court, Plaintiff received and inmate pass to the Counselor’s office in his 

housing unit for the scheduled court call. The next day, Plaintiff arrived approximately 20 

minutes before the scheduled call. Defendant Navarro directed Plaintiff to sit at a table outside 

the office. Plaintiff waited approximately one hour before Navarro called him into the office to 

place the call on Plaintiff’s behalf. 

Once Navarro placed the call, the court informed Plaintiff that he was late, and dismissed 

his case as a sanction. Plaintiff alleges that Navarro intentionally waited until forty minutes past 

Case 1:13-cv-01195-SAB Document 7 Filed 11/21/14 Page 2 of 5
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 scheduled time to make the call. Plaintiff also alleges that Navarro falsely indicated in a 

handwritten memorandum that Plaintiff was notified twenty minutes before the hearing, but did 

not appear until twenty minutes after the hearing.

A. Access to Courts

Because states must ensure indigent prisoners meaningful access to the courts, prison 

officials are required to provide either (1) adequate law libraries, or (2) adequate assistance from 

persons trained in the law. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977). Under prior law, 

Bounds was treated as establishing “core requirements,” such that a prisoner alleging deprivation 

of the Bounds minima need not allege actual injury to a state constitutional claim. Sands v. 

Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1171 (9th Cir. 1989). Recent Supreme Court precedent abolishes such 

approach, however, providing that all inmate claims for interference with access to the court 

include “actual injury” as an element. Casey v. Lewis, 518 U.S. 343 (1996). 

To establish a Bounds violation, prisoner must show that his prison’s law library or legal 

assistance program frustrated or impeded his ability to pursue a nonfrivolous legal claim. Casey, 

supra, 518 U.S. 343, 347. The right of access does not require the State to “enable the prisoner 

to discover grievances” or to “litigate effectively once in court.” The Casey court further limits 

the right of access to the courts, as follows:

Finally, we must observe that the injury requirement is not 

satisfied by just any type of frustrated legal claim . . . Bounds does 

not guarantee inmates the wherewithal to transform themselves 

into litigating engines capable of filing everything from 

shareholder derivative actions to slip-and-fall claims. The tools it 

requires to be provided are those that the inmates need in order to 

attack their sentences, directly or collaterally, and in order to 

challenge the conditions of their confinement. Impairment of any 

other litigating capacity is simply one of the incidental (and 

perfectly constitutional) consequences of conviction and 

incarceration.

Casey, 518 U.S. at 346.

Although Plaintiff clearly alleges that the conduct of Defendant Navarro impeded his 

access to the courts, he does not specify the nature of the action that he was litigating. Plaintiff 

Case 1:13-cv-01195-SAB Document 7 Filed 11/21/14 Page 3 of 5
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

refers to state court action regarding the loss of personal property. Plaintiff does not specifically 

allege what his civil action was about, or whether it directly challenged the conditions of his 

confinement. The complaint should therefore be dismissed. Plaintiff will, however, be granted 

leave to file an amended complaint. 

III. Conclusion and Order

The Court has screened Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it does not state any claims 

Upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the

opportunity to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this

order. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff is cautioned that he

may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended

complaint. George, 507 F.3d at 607 (no “buckshot” complaints).

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what 

each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal 

rights, Hydrick, 500 F.3d at 987-88. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must 

be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554 (2007) (citations omitted). 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, 

Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 

567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded 

pleading,” Local Rule 15-220. Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an 

original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d 

at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord

Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a 

claim;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send to Plaintiff a complaint form;

Case 1:13-cv-01195-SAB Document 7 Filed 11/21/14 Page 4 of 5
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. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file 

an amended complaint; 

4. Plaintiff may not add any new, unrelated claims to this action via his amended 

complaint and any attempt to do so will result in an order striking the amended 

complaint; and 

5. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, the Court will dismiss this action, 

with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2014 

/s/ Gary S. Austin 

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 1:13-cv-01195-SAB Document 7 Filed 11/21/14 Page 5 of 5