Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00452/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00452-0/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

1

 Plaintiff is informed that the filing fee increased from $150.00 to $250.00 effective

February 7, 2005.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TONY CAMPBELL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0452 LKK DAD P

vs.

E. BORBA,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis will therefore be granted.

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $250.00 for this action. See

28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1).1 Plaintiff has been without funds for six months and is

currently without funds. Accordingly, the court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. See 28

Case 2:05-cv-00452-LKK -DAD Document 5 Filed 04/20/05 Page 1 of 5
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

2

U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff is obligated to make monthly payments of twenty percent of the

preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments shall be

collected and forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the

amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(2).

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss 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) and (2).

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28

(9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

A claim should 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

that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); 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 accepts as true the allegations of the complaint. Hospital

Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976). The court also construes the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolves all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00452-LKK -DAD Document 5 Filed 04/20/05 Page 2 of 5
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

3

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

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 requires that there be an actual connection or link between the

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

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

(1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the

meaning of § 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 the present case, plaintiff seeks compensatory damages of ninety seven million

dollars from E. Borba, a correctional officer at California State Prison, Sacramento. Plaintiff

offers the following statement of his claim:

On 1-31-05 I was issued a investigative employee’s report and the

report is sapose [sic] to be issued 24 hours befor [sic] the rules

violation report hearing and it wasent [sic] and this violated my

due process because I had a right to recive [sic] my report within

this time constraint and I was deprived of this. Defendant Borba

new [sic] of the time constraint and when the report was sapose

[sic] to be issued and he new [sic] also that this is withen [sic] the

California Code of Regulations CCR 3318 and defendant also new

[sic] because he signed the investigative employee’s report

Plaintiff seeks money damages due to the depriveation [sic] of

plaintiff that defendant’s subjected plaintiff two [sic] under the

fouthteenth [sic] amendant [sic]

(Compl. at 3 & Attach.)

The state regulation cited by plaintiff governs assistance to inmates charged with

serious rule violations. An investigative employee is required to interview the charged inmate,

gather information, question all staff and inmates who may have relevant information, screen

prospective witnesses, and submit a written report to the hearing officer or disciplinary

Case 2:05-cv-00452-LKK -DAD Document 5 Filed 04/20/05 Page 3 of 5
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

2

 The court notes plaintiff’s allegations that he filed a grievance concerning the alleged

due process violation and that he completed the grievance process. The court finds it remarkable

that plaintiff filed a grievance on January 31, 2005, and proceeded to the highest level of appeal

available before signing his complaint on February 16, 2005. See McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d

1198 (9th Cir.2002) (Holding that the court "must dismiss an action involving prison conditions

when the plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit . . . .”)

4

committee chairperson. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3318(a) (West 2004). The regulation provides

that “[a] copy of the investigative employee’s report shall be provided to the inmate no less than

24 hours before a disciplinary hearing is held.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3318(b) (West 2004).

Plaintiff alleges that he received a copy of defendant Borba’s report on January

31, 2005. He does not state when the disciplinary hearing was held. The court is therefore

unable to determine whether the report was provided less than 24 hours before the hearing, in

violation of § 3318(b). Nor does plaintiff allege any facts concerning the outcome of the hearing,

the punishment imposed, or the results of his appeal. The court is therefore unable to determine

whether plaintiff’s due process claim is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).2

Inmates retain certain due process rights in prison disciplinary proceedings. Wolff

v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-71 (1974). However, state laws and regulations that contain

merely procedural requirements, even if mandatory, do not give rise to a constitutionally

cognizable liberty interest. Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1098 (9th Cir. 1987). State

regulations give rise to a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the federal

constitution only where the 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 (1995).

In the present case, plaintiff alleges a violation of a mere procedural requirement. 

He has not alleged facts showing that he was unable to prepare for his hearing or that he suffered

any harm to his ability to defend against the disciplinary charge. The undersigned finds that

plaintiff has failed to allege facts demonstrating that he was deprived of any process due under 

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00452-LKK -DAD Document 5 Filed 04/20/05 Page 4 of 5
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

5

the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff’s complaint therefore fails to state a constitutional claim

and must be dismissed.

While it does not appear that plaintiff can cure the defects of the complaint, he

will be granted an opportunity to submit an amended complaint that cures the defects noted in

this order. If plaintiff submits an amended complaint that does not cure the defects of his

complaint, the undersigned will recommend that this action be dismissed for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.

Plaintiff is informed that every amended complaint must be complete in itself as if

it were the first pleading filed in the case. See Local Rule 15-220. The court may not refer to a

prior pleading in order to make an amended complaint complete. Plaintiff’s amended complaint

will supersede his original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s March 7, 2005 application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted;

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $250.00 for this action. 

The fee shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the Director of the

California Department of Corrections filed concurrently herewith; and

3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint

within thirty days from the date of this order; the amended complaint must bear the case number

assigned to this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”; plaintiff’s failure to file an

amended complaint will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

DATED: April 19, 2005.

DAD:13

camp0452.14a

Case 2:05-cv-00452-LKK -DAD Document 5 Filed 04/20/05 Page 5 of 5