Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01102/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01102-6/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

 Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel set forth in his amended complaint is addressed in a

separate order issued concurrently with this Findings and Recommendations. 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN RANDOLPH EPPS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KATHY MENDOZA-POWERS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-01102-OWW-SMS-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION,

WITH PREJUDICE

(Doc. 17)

I. Findings and Recommendations Following Screening of Amended Complaint

A. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff John Randolph Epps (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on August

29, 2005. On May 23, 2006, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint, with leave to amend, for

failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint

on June 5, 2006.1

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

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).

Case 1:05-cv-01102-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 06/08/06 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

27

28

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). 

“Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S.

506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a short

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. Pro.

8(a). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is

and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. A court may dismiss a

complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved

consistent with the allegations. Id. at 514. “‘The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately

prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims. Indeed it may

appear on the face of the pleadings that a recovery is very remote and unlikely but that is not the

test.’” Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 755 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S.

232, 236 (1974)); see also Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004) (“‘Pleadings need

suffice only to put the opposing party on notice of the claim . . . .’” (quoting Fontana v. Haskin, 262

F.3d 871, 977 (9th Cir. 2001))). However, “the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a

plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal

interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not

initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting

Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

B. Plaintiff’s Denial of Access to the Courts Claim

The events at issue in the instant action allegedly occurred at Avenal State Prison, where

plaintiff was incarcerated at the time. Plaintiff names Warden Kathy Mendoza-Powers, J. Surges,

N. Grannis, T. D. Johnson, M. Chamver, and Jan Woodford as a defendants. Plaintiff’s claim

appears to be one for denial of access to the courts.

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-01102-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 06/08/06 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

27

28

3

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 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.

Inmates have a fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 518

U.S. 343, 346 (1996). The right is limited to direct criminal appeals, habeas petitions, and civil

rights actions. Id. at 354. Claims for denial of access to the courts may arise from the frustration

or hindrance of “a litigating opportunity yet to be gained” (forward-looking access claim) or from

the loss of a meritorious suit that cannot now be tried (backward-looking claim). Christopher v.

Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 412-15, 122 S.Ct. 2179, 2185-87 (2002). To state a claim based on denial

of access to the courts, a plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating that he suffered an actual injury

by being shut out of court. Id. at 415; Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351.

Plaintiff alleges that “CDC keeps denying paying postage for [his] legal mail and court copies

to sheriff’s civil department, doctors, attorneys, and other parties involved in [his] court cases,” and

that “[i]n order to do what the courts tell [him] to do, [he] need[s] to be able to send legal mail and

court copies to people named in [his] court cases.” (Amend. Comp., § IV.)

In the court’s screening order issued on May 23, 2006, the court stated,

Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to give rise to a claim for relief under section

1983 for denial of access to the courts. Plaintiff has not alleged any facts supporting

a claim that the policy at issue has caused him to suffer an actual injury in a direct

Case 1:05-cv-01102-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 06/08/06 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

27

28

2

 Plaintiff also fails to allege any facts linking any of the named defendants to an act or omission that

violated his rights.

4

criminal appeal, habeas petition, or civil rights action. Indeed, plaintiff’s allegations

are so conclusory that the court is unable to determine what plaintiff has been unable

to send and to whom. It is also unclear whether the policy prevents plaintiff from

sending mail altogether due to his indigency or whether it in actuality simply prevents

him from sending mail for free and causes a withdrawal to his trust account.

(Doc. 16, 3:21-27.)

Plaintiff failed to cure any of the deficiencies identified by the court in its order. Plaintiff has

not alleged any facts supporting a claim that he has suffered any actual injury as a result of CDC’s

mailing policy.2 Further, it remains unclear if plaintiff is being precluded entirely from mailing

certain documents or if he is merely being precluded from mailing them free of charge to his trust

account and on the state’s tab. The Constitution protects plaintiff from being denied access to the

courts. A claim for violation of this right accrues only when and if plaintiff suffers an actual injury

with respect to a direct criminal appeal, a habeas petition, or a civil rights suit. Harbury, 536 U.S.

at 315; Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351, 354. The Constitution does not provide plaintiff with any guarantee

that he may mail whatever he chooses to whomever he chooses free of charge so long as the

documents pertain, however remotely, to pending litigation. Because plaintiff again fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted under section 1983, the court recommends that this action

be dismissed, with prejudice.

C. Conclusion

The court finds that plaintiff’s amended complaint does not state a claim upon which relief

may be granted under section 1983 for denial of access to the courts. The court previously provided

plaintiff with the opportunity to cure the deficiencies in his claim, but plaintiff was unable to do so

in his amended complaint. Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be

dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section

1983 for denial of access to the courts. This dismissal shall count as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g). 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

Case 1:05-cv-01102-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 06/08/06 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

27

28

5

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01102-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 06/08/06 Page 5 of 5