Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04623/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04623-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCOS L MUSQUEZ, 

Plaintiff(s),

 vs

SANTA CLARA COUNTY, et al,

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No C 07-4623 VRW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Doc # 2)

Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Santa Clara County Jail, has filed a pro se civil

rights complaint under 42 USC § 1983 alleging that jail officials have violated

his constitutional right of access to the courts by denying him "pro per status,"

unmonitored phone calls and access to the law library in connection with his

pending medical care case in this court, Murquez v Santa Clara County Jail, No C

07-0318 VRW (PR) (ND Cal filed Jan 18, 2007). 

Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief, as well as leave to proceed in

forma pauperis under 28 USC § 1915. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which

prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

governmental entity. 28 USC § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable

claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint

Case 3:07-cv-04623-VRW Document 5 Filed 09/25/07 Page 1 of 3
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

"is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted," or "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

relief." Id § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v

Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F2d 696, 699 (9th Cir 1990).

To state a claim under 42 USC § 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. West v Atkins, 487 US 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims

On January 18, 2007, plaintiff filed a timely action under § 1983 alleging

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. It was dismissed with leave

to amend. On June 21, 2007, plaintiff filed an amended complaint and, on

August 2, 2007, the court ordered it served on the defendants. See Murquez v

Santa Clara County Jail, No C 07-0318 VRW (PR) (ND Cal August 2, 2007)

(order of service). Defendants recently filed an answer and the parties are

currently taking discovery in preparation for filing dispositive motions by

November 2, 2007.

Plaintiff's allegations regarding the difficulties he has encountered in

connection with this litigating his medical care action once it was ordered served

on the defendants are unfortunate, but insufficient to state a § 1983 claim for

denial of his constitutional right of access to the courts. It is well-established that

the right of access to the courts is limited to the initiation of a court action. The

state is not required to enable a prisoner to litigate effectively once in court. See

Lewis v Casey, 518 US 343, 354 (1996).

Plaintiff may raise the alleged difficulties in a motion in his pending

action, but they cannot form the basis for yet another action under § 1983. 

Case 3:07-cv-04623-VRW Document 5 Filed 09/25/07 Page 2 of 3
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

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis

(doc # 2) is DENIED and the complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a

claim under the authority of 28 USC § 1915A(b).

The clerk enter judgment in accordance with this order, terminate all

pending motions as moot, and close the file. No fee is due.

SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

G:\PRO-SE\VRW\CR.07\Musquez3.or1.wpd

Case 3:07-cv-04623-VRW Document 5 Filed 09/25/07 Page 3 of 3