Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03419/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03419-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 15-3419 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

 *E-Filed 12/23/15*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

VINCENT PRICE MCCOWAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

SALINAS VALLEY WARDEN, et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 15-3419 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this federal civil rights action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the librarian and correctional officers at Salinas Valley State Prison.

Upon review of his allegations under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court concludes that

plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to file an

amended complaint on or before February 1, 2016. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims and

dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id.

Case 3:15-cv-03419-RS Document 11 Filed 12/23/15 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 15-3419 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

2

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica

Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim

to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal conclusions

cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from

the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 (9th Cir. 1994). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1)

that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2)

that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff alleges that (1) S. Tomlinson, a prison library staff member, prevents him

from using the law library, thereby hindering his access to the courts; and (2) prison guards 

J. Marquez, M. Barroso, J. Hopark, J. Huff, and Johnson filed a false disciplinary report and

have refused to answer his questions regarding that and other events. His claim against

Tomlinson is DISMISSED with leave to amend because plaintiff’s allegations fail to show an

actual injury. Mere denial of access to the courts is not sufficient to state a claim. A plaintiff

must demonstrate that the denial caused him an actual injury by hindering his efforts to

pursue a nonfrivolous legal claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349, 351 (1996). Here,

plaintiff fails to detail what his lawsuit was about, or specify exactly how Tomlinson

prevented him from using the library, or how Tomlinson’s actions directly and specifically

hindered his prosecution of his suit. Without such information, the Court cannot determine

whether the deprivation caused him an actual injury by hindering him from pursuing a

Case 3:15-cv-03419-RS Document 11 Filed 12/23/15 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 15-3419 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

3

nonfrivolous legal claim. He must provide specific facts, such as what actions Tomlinson

took, on what dates, what materials were denied, specific details about what suit he was

pursuing, etc. 

His claims against the prison guards are DISMISSED (without prejudice) because

they are unrelated to his claims against Tomlinson. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. He may not raise

them in his amended complaint in this action. If plaintiff wishes to seek relief on these

claims, he must file a separate civil rights action. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED with leave to file an amended complaint

on or before February 1, 2016. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil

case number used in this order (15-3419 RS (PR)) and the words FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the

previous complaints, plaintiff must include in his amended complaint all the claims he wishes

to present and all of the defendants he wishes to sue. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Any claims not raised in the amended complaint will be deemed

waived. Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the prior complaint by reference. 

Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in dismissal of

this action without further notice to plaintiff.

It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of

Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion or ask for

an extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in the dismissal of this 

action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 23, 2015 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03419-RS Document 11 Filed 12/23/15 Page 3 of 3