Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00397/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00397-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH MICHAEL CASSELLS, No. 2:14-CV-0397-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

R. FARGO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(c) and no other party has been served or appeared in the action. Pending before the court

is plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 8) and supplement thereto (Doc. 17) as well as plaintiff’s response

(Doc. 19) to the court’s order to show cause.

The court previously directed plaintiff to show cause why this action should not

be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court stated:

Plaintiff names the following as defendants: R. Fargo, an

inmate appeals analyst; W. Harris, the inmate health care appeals

coordinator; and P. Milliner, the prison inmate appeals coordinator. 

Plaintiff alleges various improprieties relating to the processing of an

inmate grievance he submitted concerning claims of delay in medical care. 

1

Case 2:14-cv-00397-CMK Document 20 Filed 02/24/16 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

Prisoners have no stand-alone due process rights related to the

administrative grievance process. See Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640

(9th Cir. 1988); see also Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir.

2003) (holding that there is no liberty interest entitling inmates to a

specific grievance process). Because there is no right to any particular

grievance process, it is impossible for due process to have been violated by

ignoring or failing to properly process grievances. Numerous district

courts in this circuit have reached the same conclusion. See Smith v.

Calderon, 1999 WL 1051947 (N.D. Cal 1999) (finding that failure to

properly process grievances did not violate any constitutional right); Cage

v. Cambra, 1996 WL 506863 (N.D. Cal. 1996) (concluding that prison

officials’ failure to properly process and address grievances does not

support constitutional claim); James v. U.S. Marshal’s Service, 1995 WL

29580 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (dismissing complaint without leave to amend

because failure to process a grievance did not implicate a protected liberty

interest); Murray v. Marshall, 1994 WL 245967 (N.D. Cal. 1994)

(concluding that prisoner’s claim that grievance process failed to function

properly failed to state a claim under § 1983). Prisoners do, however,

retain a First Amendment right to petition the government through the

prison grievance process. See Bradley v. Hall, 64 F.3d 1276, 1279 (9th

Cir. 1995). Therefore, interference with the grievance process may, in

certain circumstances, implicate the First Amendment.

In this case, plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to state

a First Amendment claim based on interference with the grievance

process. Prisoners have a First Amendment right of access to the courts. 

See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 346 (1996); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S.

817, 821 (1977); Bradley, 64 F.3d at 1279 (9th Cir. 1995) (discussing the

right in the context of prison grievance procedures). This right includes

petitioning the government through the prison grievance process. See id. 

Prison officials are required to “assist inmates in the preparation and filing

of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law

libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law.” Bounds,

430 U.S. at 828. The right of access to the courts, however, only requires

that prisoners have the capability of bringing challenges to sentences or

conditions of confinement. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 356-57. Moreover, the

right is limited to non-frivolous criminal appeals, habeas corpus actions,

and § 1983 suits. See id. at 353 n.3 & 354-55. Therefore, the right of

access to the courts is only a right to present these kinds of claims to the

court, and not a right to discover claims or to litigate them effectively once

filed. See id. at 354-55.

As a jurisdictional requirement flowing from the standing

doctrine, the prisoner must allege an actual injury. See id. at 349. “Actual

injury” is prejudice with respect to contemplated or existing litigation,

such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or present a non-frivolous

claim. See id.; see also Phillips v. Hust, 477 F.3d 1070, 1075 (9th Cir.

2007). Delays in providing legal materials or assistance which result in

prejudice are “not of constitutional significance” if the delay is reasonably

related to legitimate penological purposes. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 362. 

Because plaintiff has not alleged any actual injury, he cannot proceed on a

First Amendment claim arising from interference with the grievance

process. 

2

Case 2:14-cv-00397-CMK Document 20 Filed 02/24/16 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

In his response to the order to show cause, plaintiff states that he was not allowed to file

grievances because defendants threw away his medical appeal “claiming it was never received.” 

Plaintiff suggests that his ability to exhaust the claims raised in this action was chilled. Plaintiff

states: 

Both federal and state law require that a state prisoner file an

administrative grievance (602) and exhaust it by a Director’s Level

response prior to any court action, such as a habeas corpus or a civil rights

complaint. [¶] This is a Civil Rights complaint. 

For plaintiff to show an actual injury he would, at a minimum, have to allege that

defendants’ alleged interference with the grievance process resulted in his inability to exhaust his

claims through that process. Plaintiff has not done so. In fact, the allegations in the complaint

indicate the exact opposite. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that he was able to complete the

institutional grievance process and thereby exhaust his claims. Because plaintiff has failed to 1

allege any facts showing an actual injury, his complaint does not give rise to a First Amendment

claim based on interference with the grievance process. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Plaintiff appears to allege that his grievance was treated as a staff complaint 1

and/or medical appeal. In certain circumstances, California prison regulations make it

impossible for the inmate to pursue a grievance through the entire grievance process. See Brown

v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 939 n. 11 (9th Cir. 2005). For example, where a claim contained in an

inmate’s grievance is characterized by prison officials as a “staff complaint” and processed

through a separate confidential process, prison officials lose any authority to act on the subject of

the grievance. See id. at 937. Thus, the claim is exhausted when it is characterized as a “staff

complaint.” See id. at 940. 

3

Case 2:14-cv-00397-CMK Document 20 Filed 02/24/16 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action is dismissed for failure to state a claim; and

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file. 

DATED: February 23, 2016

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 2:14-cv-00397-CMK Document 20 Filed 02/24/16 Page 4 of 4