Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05257/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05257-0/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 Although the Complaint alleges that CDC Staff and Officers have violated certain rules and regulations, no 1

specific individuals other than Governor Schwarzenegger have been named as Defendants. 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HENRY J. LUGO,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCHWARZENEGGER,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 5257 OWW SMS P 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND (Doc. 1.)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SEND PLAINTIFF BLANK CIVIL RIGHTS

FORM 

 Henry J. Lugo (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The instant action was filed on

February 10, 2004, and names Governor Schwarzenegger as the sole Defendant in the action.1

A. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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

Case 1:04-cv-05257-OWW -SMS Document 12 Filed 07/27/06 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

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). 

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 as true 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 COMPLAINT

In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that his appeals have not been properly responded to,

that his incoming and outgoing mail have been interfered with, and that he is only being given

limited access to the law library. 

C. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF’

1. Linkage Requirement

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at

law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between

the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See

Case 1:04-cv-05257-OWW -SMS Document 12 Filed 07/27/06 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

Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

(1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a

constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates

in another’s affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that

causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th

Cir. 1978). In order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, plaintiff must link each named

defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of plaintiff’s

federal rights.

2. 11 Amendment th

Plaintiff names Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger as Defendant because he is responsible

for the welfare of inmates. 

The Eleventh Amendment bars damages actions against state officials in their official

capacity. See Doe v. Lawrence Livermore Nat’l Lab., 131 F.3d 836, 839 (9th Cir. 1997);

Eaglesmith v. Ward, 73 F.3d 857, 859 (9th Cir. 1996); Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d 469, 472 (9th

Cir. 1992). Therefore, any claim for relief against defendant Davis in his official capacity is

barred. However, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits seeking damages against state

officials in their personal capacity. See Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 30 (1991); Ashker v.

California Dep’t of Corrections, 112 F.3d 392, 394 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 168

(1997); Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d 469, 472 (9th Cir. 1992). “Personal-capacity suits seek to

impose personal liability upon a government official for actions [the official] takes under color of

state law. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165 (1988). 

Plaintiff may not sue Defendant Schwarzenegger in his personal capacity under section

1983 pursuant to a theory of respondeat superior. Rather, the causal link between Defendant

Schwarzenegger and the claimed constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle

v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir.

1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). Plaintiff must allege facts that would support a claim

that Defendant Schwarzenegger either: personally participated in the alleged deprivation of

constitutional rights; knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them; or promulgated or

Case 1:04-cv-05257-OWW -SMS Document 12 Filed 07/27/06 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

“implemented a policy so deficient that the policy ‘itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights’

and is ‘the moving force of the constitutional violation.’” Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646

(9th Cir. 1989) (internal citations omitted); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Although federal pleading standards are broad, some facts must be alleged to support claims

under section 1983. See Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168

(1993).

Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that would support a claim that Defendant

Schwarzenegger personally participated in the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights; knew

of the violations and failed to act to prevent them; or promulgated or “implemented a policy so

deficient that the policy ‘itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights’ and is ‘the moving force

of the constitutional violation.’” Hansen v. Black at 646. For this reason, Plaintiff fails to state a

claim for relief against Defendant Schwarzenegger. 

3. Mail Interference

A prison inmate retains those First Amendment rights not inconsistent with his status as a

prisoner or the legitimate penological objectives of the correctional system. Thus, a prison

official's interference with an inmate's mail may be challenged when such interference is not

reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89

(1987); Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822 (1974). As a general proposition, prison officials

have an obligation to post outgoing mail and to deliver incoming mail promptly. See, e.g.,

Nicholson v. Choctaw County, 498 F. Supp. 295 (S.D. Ala. 1980). Nevertheless, delays

sometimes occur, and mail is occasionally lost; these delays and losses are not unconstitutional

unless they occur as a result of a systematic breakdown in the prison mail system or as a result of

either intentional interference with a prisoner's mail rights or deliberate indifference to those

rights. Grady v. Wilen, 735 F.2d 303 (8th Cir. 1984); Armstrong v. Lane, 771 F. Supp. 943 (C.D.

Ill. 1991) (unintentional losses and delays of plaintiff's mail, “while understandably frustrating qqq

fail to rise to the level of a constitutional violation”).

Plaintiff states that he corresponds with over 100 people on a monthly basis and only

receives approximately three to four letters per day and only eight letters all year (4 months),

Case 1:04-cv-05257-OWW -SMS Document 12 Filed 07/27/06 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

mostly from Europe. Based on this, Plaintiff concludes that his that his mail gets “over-censored,

delayed and lost.” (Complaint at 2.) Plaintiff’s allegations, however, are insufficient to give rise

to a federal constitutional violation. Further, Plaintiff fails to link any named Defendant to an act

or omission and thus, his allegations fail to state a claim on that basis as well. 

4. Inmate Appeals

Plaintiff states that of his last fifty (50) 602's filed, “only a dozen have been properly

responded to.” (Complaint at 1.) 

There is no constitutional right to an inmate appeals process. The Ninth Circuit has held

that Prisoners do not have a "separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance

procedure." Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir.2003), citing Mann v. Adams, 855

F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.1988). The non-existence of, or the failure of prison officials to properly

implement, an administrative appeals process within the prison system does not raise

constitutional concerns. Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.1988). See also, Buckley

v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir.1993); Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728 (8th Cir.1991); Azeez

v. DeRobertis, 568 F.Supp. 8, 10 (N.D.Ill.1982) ("[A prison] grievance procedure is a procedural

right only, it does not confer any substantive right upon the inmates. Hence, it does not give rise

to a protected liberty interest requiring the procedural protections envisioned by the fourteenth

amendment"). A failure to process a grievance does not state a constitutional violation. Buckley,

supra. State regulations give rise to a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the

federal constitution only if those regulations pertain to "freedom from restraint" that "imposes

atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison

life." Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 2300 (1995).

Accordingly, based on the above, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim concerning his

inmate appeals. 

5. Law Library Access

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

Case 1:04-cv-05257-OWW -SMS Document 12 Filed 07/27/06 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

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. 

Here, Plaintiff complains that his access to the law library is limited to just an hour four

times in four months. (Complaint at 3.) Plaintiff alleges this is inadequate. Plaintiff also

complains that the law library does not have the appropriate forms he needs and that the law

librarian refuses to make copies of Plaintiff’s legal work. Id. Plaintiff’s allegations fails to state

a cognizable claim for relief. 

6. Exhibits

The Court notes further that Plaintiff has submitted two hundred sixty eight (268) pages

of exhibits. Plaintiff is informed that it is inappropriate to attach exhibits to a complaint. See

Rule 8, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Further, the Court cannot serve as a repository for the

parties' evidence. Originals or copies of evidence (i.e., prison or medical records, witness

affidavits, etc.) should not be submitted until the course of litigation brings the evidence into

question (for example, on a motion for summary judgment, at trial, or when requested by the

court). At this point, the submission of evidence is premature as the Plaintiff is only required to

state a prima facie claim for relief. Accordingly, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to return

the documents to Plaintiff for safekeeping until such time as review by the Court is necessary. 

Finally, Plaintiff is reminded of the requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure which requires “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

entitled to relief.” Rule 8(a) expresses the principle of notice-pleading, whereby the pleader need

only give the opposing party fair notice of a claim. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). 

Rule 8(a) does not require an elaborate recitation of every fact a plaintiff may ultimately rely

Case 1:04-cv-05257-OWW -SMS Document 12 Filed 07/27/06 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

upon at trial, but only a statement sufficient to “give the defendant fair notice of what the

plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Id. at 47. 

D. CONCLUSION

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain any claims upon which relief

can be granted under § 1983 against any of the Defendants. The Court will provide Plaintiff with

time to file an Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies identified above should he wish to do

so. 

Plaintiff must demonstrate in the Amended Complaint how the conditions complained of

resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. See, Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9 Cir. th

1980). The Amended Complaint must specifically state how each Defendant is involved. 

Further, 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 (9 Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 th

F.2d 740, 743 (9 Cir. 1978). th

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 (9 Cir. th

1967). Once an Amended Complaint is filed, the original Complaint 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. The Amended

Complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “AMENDED COMPLAINT,” reference the

appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury. 

E. ORDER

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to SEND Plaintiff a blank civil rights

complaint form;

2. The Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. WITHIN THIRTY (30) days

from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL: 

Case 1:04-cv-05257-OWW -SMS Document 12 Filed 07/27/06 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

a. File an Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court

in this Order, or

b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file an Amended

Complaint and pursue the action but instead wishes to voluntary dismiss

the case. 

Plaintiff is forewarned that his failure to comply with this Order may result in a

Recommendation that the Complaint be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05257-OWW -SMS Document 12 Filed 07/27/06 Page 8 of 8