Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01620/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01620-1/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

STEVEN DEON TURNER, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. SALORIO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01620-DAD-BAM (PC)

SCREENING ORDER GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 1)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Steven Deon Turner, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on 

November 8, 2019, is currently before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 1.) 

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous 

or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary 

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b).

Case 1:19-cv-01620-DAD-BAM Document 10 Filed 01/28/20 Page 1 of 8
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 must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken 

as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, 

Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires 

sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable 

for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S.

Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted 

unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the 

plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

II. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff is currently housed at the California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, 

California, where the events in the complaint are alleged to have occurred. Plaintiff names the 

following defendants in their individual and official capacities: (1) Correctional Officer R. 

Salorio; and (2) Mail Room Staff E. Atencio. 

In Claim I, Plaintiff alleges that on October 13, 2019, he turned in confidential mail 

addressed to Alex Padilla, Secretary of State, with a proof of service attached in the form of a 

Form 22. The Form 22 was signed by Defendant Salorio, confirming that Plaintiff was sending 

“confidential/legal mail” to Alex Padilla. Plaintiff explains that the mail addressed to Alex 

Padilla was a request for the production of documents demanding the official bonds of William 

Joe Sullivan, A. Gray, R. Martin, M. Munoz, D. Johnson, A. Gomez, C. Butler, J. Busby, S. 

Snyder, K. Hosey, and M. Boutte. On October 23, 2019, Defendant E. Atencio sent Plaintiff an 

outgoing legal mail log, with a 22 form attached, showing that Plaintiff’s mail addressed to Alex 

Padilla never left the institution. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Salorio is guilty of mail theft and 

mail fraud. Plaintiff further claims that Defendant Salorio breached his contract/oath by stealing 

Case 1:19-cv-01620-DAD-BAM Document 10 Filed 01/28/20 Page 2 of 8
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’s legal mail addressed to the Secretary of State and should be punished according to 18 

U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242. 

In Claim II, Plaintiff alleges that on October 17, 2019, Defendant Atencio opened 

Plaintiff’s legal mail outside of Plaintiff’s presence. Plaintiff asserts that the letter came from 

CAIR Council on American Islamic Relations. Defendant Atencio cannot explain why he opened 

Plaintiff’s mail outside of Plaintiff’s presence because “on the back of the envelope it has 

‘LEGAL’ twice.” (ECF No. 1 at 6.) Plaintiff claims that Defendant Atencio’s actions were not in 

error because the notice was on the envelope before Defendant Atencio opened it. Plaintiff 

claims that Defendant Atencio breached his contract/oath by violation the Bill of Rights and 

opening Plaintiff’s legal mail outside of Plaintiff’s presence. 

In Claim III, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Salorio and Atencio are guilty of violating 

the Constitution as it applies to the oath of office, the operational manual and the law enforcement 

code of ethics/peace officer’s oath. Plaintiff further alleges that defendants and the institution 

have maintained a pattern and consistent disregard of his right to petition the government for 

redress of grievances and should be punished. 

As relief, Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, punishment of defendants, and 

compensatory and punitive damages. 

III. Discussion

A. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Section 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) provides that 

“[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any 

other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until 

such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Prisoners are 

required to exhaust the available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock, 549 

U.S. 199, 211 (2007); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). Exhaustion 

is required regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by 

the process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001), and the exhaustion requirement applies 

to all prisoner suits relating to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002).

Case 1:19-cv-01620-DAD-BAM Document 10 Filed 01/28/20 Page 3 of 8
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

“[T]o properly exhaust administrative remedies prisoners ‘must complete the 

administrative review process in accordance with the applicable procedural rules,’ [ ]—rules that 

are defined not by the PLRA, but by the prison grievance process itself.” Jones, 549 U.S. at 218 

(quoting Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88 (2006)). The State of California provides its 

prisoners the right to appeal administratively “any policy, decision, action, condition, or omission 

by the department or its staff that the inmate or parolee can demonstrate as having a material 

adverse effect upon his or her health, safety, or welfare.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15 § 3084.1(a). The 

process is initiated by submitting a CDCR Form 602 (“602 form”). Id. at § 3084.2(a). Three 

levels of appeal are involved, including the first level, second level, and third level. Id. at § 

3084.7. The third level of review exhausts administrative remedies. Id. at § 3084.7(d)(3).

In this case, Plaintiff neither alleges exhaustion of administrative remedies nor provides 

evidence of exhaustion as to his claims. If Plaintiff elects to amend his complaint, he must allege 

whether he properly exhausted his claims or was otherwise excused from the mandatory 

exhaustion requirement. If the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust available 

remedies, the proper remedy is dismissal without prejudice of the portions of the complaint barred 

by § 1997e(a). See Jones, 549 U.S. at 223-24; Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1175-76 (9th Cir. 

2005).

B. Outgoing Mail 

Plaintiff appears to allege that Defendant Salorio interfered with his outgoing mail on one 

occasion. Prison inmates enjoy a First Amendment right to send and receive mail. Witherow v. 

Paff, 52 F.3d 264, 265 (9th Cir. 1995). However, a temporary delay or isolated incident of mail 

interference is usually insufficient to establish a constitutional violation. See Crofton v. Roe, 170 

F.3d 957, 961 (9th Cir. 1999); Zaiza v. Tamplen, No. 2:15–cv–0447–KJM–EFB P, 2016 WL 

2930877, at *4 (E.D. Cal. May 19, 2016) (“An isolated incident of mail interference or tampering 

is usually insufficient to establish a constitutional violation.”). Plaintiff’s allegations that 

Defendant Salorio interfered with Plaintiff’s outgoing mail on one occasion are not sufficient to 

state a cognizable claim.

///

Case 1:19-cv-01620-DAD-BAM Document 10 Filed 01/28/20 Page 4 of 8
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

C. Legal Mail

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Atencio opened Plaintiff’s legal mail outside of Plaintiff’s 

presence on one occasion. “[P]risoners have a protected First Amendment interest in having 

properly marked legal mail opened only in their presence.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 

1204, 1211 (9th Cir. 2017) (concluding the protected First Amendment interest extends to civil 

legal mail). Consistent with the First Amendment, prison officials may (1) require that mail from 

attorneys be identified as such and (2) open such correspondence in the presence of the prisoner 

for visual inspection. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 576–77 (1974).

As with Plaintiff’s claim involving Defendant Salorio, Plaintiff has not alleged that the 

event involving Defendant Atencio was anything more than an isolated incident, which is 

insufficient to state a constitutional claim. Further, according exhibits attached to the complaint, 

the envelope at issue was stamped as “OPENED IN ERROR IN C.C.I. MAILROOM.” (ECF No. 

1 at 13.) An unintentional violation amounts at most to negligence, which does not give rise to 

constitutional claims under § 1983. Stevenson v. Koskey, 877 F.2d 1435, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 

1989); see also Watkins v. Curry, No. C 10-2539 SI (pr), 2011 WL 5079532, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 

Oct. 25, 2011) (“Absent evidence of a broader plan or course of conduct to censor plaintiff’s mail 

unconstitutionally, an honest error by prison officials does not justify relief under § 1983). 

Further, it appears that the mail was returned to Plaintiff and it unclear what, if any, harm 

occurred. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim for relief against Defendant

Atencio. 

D. Criminal Prosecution

Plaintiff appears to seek referral of defendants for criminal prosecution for alleged 

violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242. However, sections 241 and 242 “do not provide for a 

private right of action.” Ray, Jr. v. Friedlander, No. C 10-1107 SI (pr), 2010 WL 3464453, at *1 

(N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2010) (citing Peabody v. United States, 394 F.2d 175, 177 (9th Cir.1968)). As 

a private citizen, Plaintiff has no authority to criminally prosecute anyone. Ray, Jr., 2010 WL 

3464453 at *1. The complaint is legally frivolous insofar as it attempts to initiate a criminal 

prosecution of the defendants. 

Case 1:19-cv-01620-DAD-BAM Document 10 Filed 01/28/20 Page 5 of 8
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

6

E. State Law Claims

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), in any civil action in which the district court has original 

jurisdiction, the “district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are 

so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same 

case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution,” except as provided in 

subsections (b) and (c). The Supreme Court has stated that “if the federal claims are dismissed 

before trial, . . . the state claims should be dismissed as well.” United Mine Workers of Am. v. 

Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966).

Although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff 

must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. As Plaintiff has 

not stated a cognizable claim for relief under federal law, the Court declines to screen Plaintiff's 

purported state law claims.

Further, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to bring any state law tort claims against defendants, 

such as negligence, the Government Claims Act requires exhaustion of those claims with the 

California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board. Plaintiff is required to 

specifically allege compliance in his complaint. Shirk v. Vista Unified Sch. Dist., 42 Cal. 4th 201, 

208–09 (Cal. 2007); State v. Superior Court of Kings Cty. (Bodde), 32 Cal. 4th 1234, 1239 (Cal. 

2004); Mabe v. San Bernardino Cty. Dep’t of Pub. Soc. Servs., 237 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 

2001); Mangold v. California Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir. 1995); Karim–

Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 627 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff has failed to 

allege compliance with the Government Claims Act. 

F. Declaratory Relief

In addition to monetary damages, Plaintiff seeks a declaration that his rights were 

violated. “A declaratory judgment, like other forms of equitable relief, should be granted only as 

a matter of judicial discretion, exercised in the public interest.” Eccles v. Peoples Bank of 

Lakewood Village, 333 U.S. 426, 431 (1948). “Declaratory relief should be denied when it will 

neither serve a useful purpose in clarifying and settling the legal relations in issue nor terminate 

the proceedings and afford relief from the uncertainty and controversy faced by the parties.” 

Case 1:19-cv-01620-DAD-BAM Document 10 Filed 01/28/20 Page 6 of 8
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

7

United States v. Washington, 759 F.2d 1353, 1357 (9th Cir. 1985). In the event that this action 

reaches trial and the jury returns a verdict in favor of Plaintiff, the verdict will be a finding that 

Plaintiff's constitutional rights were violated. Accordingly, a declaration that any defendant 

violated Plaintiff's rights is unnecessary.

IV. Conclusion and Order

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to adequately allege exhaustion of 

administrative remedies and fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. As Plaintiff is proceeding 

pro se, the Court will grant Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint to cure the aboveidentified deficiencies to the extent he is able to do so in good faith. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 

1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). 

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

each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 678-79, 129 S.Ct. at 1948-49. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must 

be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 

555 (citations omitted). 

Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated 

claims in his first amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no 

“buckshot” complaints). 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 

Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, Plaintiff’s amended 

complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” 

Local Rule 220. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

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

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

amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this order or file a 

notice of voluntary dismissal; and

3. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, the 

Case 1:19-cv-01620-DAD-BAM Document 10 Filed 01/28/20 Page 7 of 8
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

8

Court will recommend dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to obey a court 

order and for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 28, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01620-DAD-BAM Document 10 Filed 01/28/20 Page 8 of 8