Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01335/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01335-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CORD EVERTT GRADY,

Plaintiff, 

 v.

ROBERT HOREL, Warden; B.

SAMPLES, Correctional Counselor II;

and N. GRANNIS, Chief, Inmate

Appeals Branch,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-1335 WHA (PR) 

DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND

Plaintiff, an inmate of Pelican Bay State Prison, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

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 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims

which 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. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro

se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699

(9th Cir. 1990).

Case 3:07-cv-01335-WHA Document 6 Filed 10/12/07 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

2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; the

statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds

upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). 

Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a

plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than

labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not

do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative

level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A

complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id.

at 1986-87. 

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 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins,

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. LEGAL CLAIMS

Plaintiff contends that Warden Horel “admitted” a rumor that the prison was going to

put triple bunks in the gym, and when plaintiff asked about bathroom facilities – plaintiff says

ventilation is inadequate – the Warden said that he would “authorize portable toilets ... along

the fence line.” It is obvious that the Warden simply saying this to plaintiff was not a violation

of any constitutional right, so plaintiff has failed to state a claim against the Warden. Plaintiff

simply has not presented a claim for relief that is “plausible on its face.” See Twombly, 127 S.

Ct. 1955, 1986-87. It may be, however, that with the allegation of additional facts plaintiff

could state a claim. The claim against Horel therefore will be dismissed with leave to amend. 

As to defendant Samples, plaintiff alleges that she did not conduct an adequate

investigation of his administrative appeal on the triple-bunking issue, and that defendant

Grannis, head of the inmate appeals section in Sacramento, returned his appeal to him 121 days

after it was sent. There is no constitutional right to an inmate grievance response or any

Case 3:07-cv-01335-WHA Document 6 Filed 10/12/07 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

3

particular action. Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728 (8th Cir. 1991) ("prisoner's right to petition the

government for redress ... is not compromised by the prison's refusal to entertain his

grievance."). Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Sample and Grannis and it is clear that

no amendment could save those claims, so they will be dismissed without leave to amend. 

CONCLUSION

1. Plaintiff’s claims against Sample and Grannis are DISMISSED with prejudice. 

2. Plaintiff’s claims against Warden Horel are DISMISSED with leave to amend, as

indicated above, within thirty days from the date of this order. The amended complaint must

include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the words AMENDED

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

original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v.

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the

original complaint by reference. Failure to amend within the designated time will result in the

dismissal of these claims.

3. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court

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

Change of Address.” Papers intended to be filed in this case should be addressed to the clerk

and not to the undersigned. Petitioner also must comply with the Court's orders in a timely

fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 11 , 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.07\GRADY1335.DWLTA.wpd 

Case 3:07-cv-01335-WHA Document 6 Filed 10/12/07 Page 3 of 3