Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00818/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00818-6/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

MARVIN WALL,

Plaintiff,

vs.

WARDEN McGRATH, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-00818-AWI-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 23)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND TO ALLEGE A FIRST

AMENDMENT INTERFERENCE WITH

MAIL CLAIM ONLY

ORDER REFERRING ACTION TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, Marvin Wall (“Plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On April 17, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations that

recommended the amended complaint be dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a

claim. The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice to

Plaintiff that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed on or before

May 10, 2007. 

On May 4, 2007, Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.

Case 1:05-cv-00818-AWI-DLB Document 25 Filed 07/02/07 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

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305,

this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

the court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

analysis.

However, the objections do raise one issue not addressed by the Magistrate Judge. In the

amended complaint, Plaintiff complains that Defendant M. Buckley denied his legal property by

alleging it was an unauthorized package. Plaintiff states that the package contained trial

transcripts which Plaintiff needed to litigate his habeas corpus petition. The Magistrate Judge

found that this claim did not state a claim for a denial of Plaintiff’s First Amendment right to

access the courts. Because Plaintiff had been able to file his habeas corpus petition and this

petition is currently pending, the Magistrate Judge correctly found that Plaintiff had failed to

allege an actual injury.

In the objections, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants acted oppressively and abusively when

they deprived him of his mail. While Plaintiff cites to the Fourteenth Amendment, it appears that

Plaintiff is attempting to allege a First Amendment claim based on prison officials’ interference

with his mail. Such a First Amendment claim is a separate claim from the First Amendment

access to the courts claim addressed by the Magistrate Judge. 

Prior to dismissal of a complaint, the court should give a plaintiff notice of the

complaint’s pleading deficiencies and an opportunity to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d

1122 (9 Cir. 2000) (if court determines that complaint fails to state claim, leave to amend may

th

be granted to extent that complaint’s deficiencies can be cured); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446,

1448 (9 Cir. 1987) (prisoner must be given notice of deficiencies and opportunity to amend th

prior to dismissing for failure to state a claim). In this action the court has presumed Plaintiff

was proceeding with a First Amendment access to the courts claim. As such, the court has never

advised Plaintiff concerning a First Amendment interference with mail claim. Accordingly, the

court finds that Plaintiff should be allowed to file a second amended complaint that pleads only a

First Amendment interference with mail claim.

Prisoners have “First Amendment right to send and receive mail.” Witherow v. Paff, 52

Case 1:05-cv-00818-AWI-DLB Document 25 Filed 07/02/07 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

3

F.3d 264, 265 (9 Cir. 1995). Prison regulations relating to the regulation of incoming mail are th

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. Based on

these standards, it may be possible for Plaintiff to amend the complaint to allege that his First

Amendment right against interference with his mail was violated when Defendant M. Buckley

refused to give Plaintiff his mail. 

Accordingly, the court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to file a second

amended complaint, if Plaintiff wishes to do so, that alleges a First Amendment interference with

mail claim against Defendant M. Buckley. If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff

must demonstrate how the conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of Plaintiff’s

constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9 Cir. 1980). The complaint must

th

allege in specific terms how Defendant M. Buckley was 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. See 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). 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed April 17, 2007, are ADOPTED;

2. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend to allege a First Amendment

interference with mail claim;

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint

form;

Case 1:05-cv-00818-AWI-DLB Document 25 Filed 07/02/07 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

4

4. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must file a

second amended complaint that alleges only a First Amendment interference with

mail claim;

5. Plaintiff is FOREWARNED that failure to comply with this order will result in

the dismissal of this action; and

6. This action is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00818-AWI-DLB Document 25 Filed 07/02/07 Page 4 of 4