Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01554/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01554-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY CLEVELAND, CASE NO. CV-F-06-1554 AWI DLB P

Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT,

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

vs.

T. PETERSON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

I. Screening Order

A. Screening Requirement

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

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on November 2, 2006.

 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 appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

Case 1:06-cv-01554-AWI-DLB Document 8 Filed 02/13/08 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

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 astrue 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 Plaintiff’s Complaint

The events at issue in this action allegedly occurred at the California Correctional Institution,

where plaintiff was formerly incarcerated. Plaintiff names the warden and numerous correctional

officers as defendants. Plaintiff is seeking monetary relief. 

Plaintiff alleges that he was transferred to the CCI Security Housing Unit in the summer of 2005.

Plaintiff generally alleges that the law library access and photocopying policies at CCI denied him

meaningful access to the court system. He also alleges that he was denied assistance by several of the

legal assistants in the law library

Although plaintiff alleges that he was denied access to the courts, plaintiff’s allegations do not

support such a claim. Inmates have a fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts. Lewis

v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 346 (1996). The right of access is merely the right to bring to court a grievance

the inmate wishes to present, and is limited to direct criminal appeals, habeas petitions, and civil rights

actions. Id. at 354. The State is not required to enable the inmate to discover grievances or to litigate

effectively once in court. Id. 

Inmates do not have the right to a law library or legal assistance. Id. at 351. Law libraries and

legal assistance programs are only the means of ensuring access to the courts. Id. Because inmates do

not have “an abstract, freestanding right to a law library or legal assistance, an inmate cannot establish

relevant actual injury by establishing that his prison’s law library or legal assistance program is subpar

in some theoretical sense.” Id. Rather, an inmate claiming interference with or denial of access to the

courts must show that he suffered an actual injury. Id. 

Case 1:06-cv-01554-AWI-DLB Document 8 Filed 02/13/08 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

Plaintiff has alleged no facts that demonstrate he suffered an actual injury. The fact that plaintiff

was not able to litigate his action as effectively as he might have liked or was subject to a temporary

delay, without more, does not give rise to an access claim. 

Moreover, plaintiff’s allegations relating to his inmate appeals also fail to state a cognizable

claim under section 1983. The Due Process Clause protects prisoners from being deprived of liberty

without due process of law. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). In order to state a cause

of action for deprivation of due process, a plaintiff must first establish the existence of a liberty interest

for which the protection is sought. “States may under certain circumstances create liberty interests

which are protected by the Due Process Clause.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995).

Liberty interests created by state law are generally 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. 

“[A prison] grievance procedure is a procedural right only, it does not confer any substantive

right upon the inmates.” Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993) (citing Azeez v.

DeRobertis, 568 F. Supp. 8, 10 (N.D. Ill. 1982)); see also Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir.

2003) (no liberty interest in processing of appeals because no entitlement to a specific grievance

procedure); Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001) (existence of grievance procedure

confers no liberty interest on prisoner); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). “Hence,

it does not give rise to a protected liberty interest requiring the procedural protections envisioned by the

Fourteenth Amendment.” Azeez v. DeRobertis, 568 F. Supp. at 10; Spencer v. Moore, 638 F. Supp.

315, 316 (E.D. Mo. 1986). Actions in reviewing prisoner’s administrative appeal cannot serve as the

basis for liability under a § 1983 action. Buckley, 997 F.2d at 495. 

Defendants’ actions in responding to plaintiff’s appeal, alone, cannot give rise to any claims for

relief under section 1983 and plaintiff has not alleged any other facts that demonstrate that defendants

violated his rights under federal law. Accordingly, plaintiff fails to state any claims upon which relief

may be granted under section 1983. 

D. Conclusion

The court finds that plaintiff’s complaint fails to state any claims upon which relief may be

Case 1:06-cv-01554-AWI-DLB Document 8 Filed 02/13/08 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

granted under section 1983. The court will grant plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. 

In his amended complaint, plaintiff shall state as briefly as possible the facts of his case,

describing how each defendant is involved, and plaintiff shall not give any legal arguments or cite to any

cases or statutes. (See Form Complaint, § IV, enclosed with this order.) Plaintiff shall separate his

claims, so that it is clear what his claims are and who the defendants involved are. Further, for each

claim, plaintiff shall clearly and succinctly set forth the facts that plaintiff believes give rise to the claim.

Plaintiff is informed he must demonstrate in his complaint how the conditions complained of

have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th

Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved. 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 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 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 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff

files an amended complaint, the original pleading 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.

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

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

upon which relief may be granted under section 1983;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall file an

amended complaint; and

4. If plaintiff failsto file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, the court will

recommend that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to state any

claims upon which relief may be granted.

Case 1:06-cv-01554-AWI-DLB Document 8 Filed 02/13/08 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

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 12, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01554-AWI-DLB Document 8 Filed 02/13/08 Page 5 of 5