Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01609/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01609-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EARL J. ROBBINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

LACKNER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01609-DLB PC

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff Earl J. Robbins (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed his complaint on 

September 23, 2014, and it was transferred to this Court on October 15, 2014. Pursuant to Court 

order, he filed a First Amended Complaint on April 1, 2015. He names Sierra Conservation Center 

(“SCC”) Warden Heidi M. Lackner, SCC Mailroom Supervisor S. Winn-Reed, SCC Mailroom 

Office Assistant T. Jenkins, Correctional Captain C. Koenig and Captain Hodges as Defendants.1

A. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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 

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on September 30, 2014.

Case 1:14-cv-01609-DLB Document 16 Filed 09/22/15 Page 1 of 7
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

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b)(1),(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). 

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 

is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, 

do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 

‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual 

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other 

federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 

(9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); Jones v. 

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff’s allegations must link the actions or 

omissions of each named defendant to a violation of his rights; there is no respondeat superior 

liability under section 1983. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 

1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); 

Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. Plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim 

for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). 

The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 

B. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at SCC in Jamestown, California, where the events at issue 

occurred.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Winn-Reed and Koenig are responsible for removing photos 

and stamps, and refusing to process his mail. Beginning in December 2013, Plaintiff ordered photos 

Case 1:14-cv-01609-DLB Document 16 Filed 09/22/15 Page 2 of 7
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

from “Stable Entertainment.” Mailroom staff, including Defendant Winn-Reed, continued taking the 

photos, and her actions were approved by Defendant Koenig. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants 

continue to tell him that Stable Entertainment is sending nude photos, though Plaintiff believes that 

Stable Entertainment is not “licensed for nude-photo distribution.” ECF No. 11, at 4.

Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Lackner acknowledged in writing that mail staff were 

stealing stamps from inmates, including Plaintiff, but she was not certain which staff members were 

involved. Despite this, no staff members have been fired for theft.

Finally, Plaintiff contends that Defendant Hodges, in the CDCR Office in Sacramento, 

removed Plaintiff’s three-page catalog attached to his administrative grievance because he thought 

the catalog contained nude photos. Plaintiff contends that the catalog should have been kept with his 

appeal because it shows that the photos were not nude images, and that Defendant Hodges 

incorrectly cites section 3135.

For relief, Plaintiff requests that his photos be returned, and that he receive compensation for 

pain and suffering. He also asks that all “issues and letters” be removed from his central file. ECF 

No. 11, at 5. 

C. DISCUSSION

1. Eighth Amendment

The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment protects 

prisoners not only from inhumane methods of punishment but also from inhumane conditions of 

confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Farmer v. 

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994) and Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347, 101 

S.Ct. 2392 (1981)) (quotation marks omitted). While conditions of confinement may be, and often 

are, restrictive and harsh, they must not involve the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain. 

Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (citing Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347) (quotation marks omitted). Thus, 

conditions which are devoid of legitimate penological purpose or contrary to evolving standards of 

decency that mark the progress of a maturing society violate the Eighth Amendment. Morgan, 465 

F.3d at 1045 (quotation marks and citations omitted); Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 737, 122 S.Ct. 

2508 (2002); Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 346. 

Case 1:14-cv-01609-DLB Document 16 Filed 09/22/15 Page 3 of 7
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

4

Prison officials have a duty to ensure that prisoners are provided adequate shelter, food, 

clothing, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety, Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 

2000) (quotation marks and citations omitted), but not every injury that a prisoner sustains while in 

prison represents a constitutional violation, Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (quotation marks omitted). To 

maintain an Eighth Amendment claim, a prisoner must show that prison officials were deliberately 

indifferent to a substantial risk of harm to his health or safety. E.g., Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847; 

Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150-51 (9th Cir. 2010); Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 812-14 

(9th Cir. 2009); Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045; Johnson, 217 F.3d at 731; Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 

1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998).

Here, Plaintiff alleges that the removal of his photos and stamps constitutes cruel and unusual 

punishment. However, this does not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation, and 

Plaintiff therefore fails to state a claim. This cannot be cured by amendment.

2. Due Process Clause

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated his due process rights when he removed a catalog 

that Plaintiff attached to his grievance as evidence. 

“The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause protects persons against deprivations of 

life, liberty, or property; and those who seek to invoke its procedural protection must establish that 

one of these interests is at stake.” Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221, 125 S.Ct. 2384 (2005). 

Plaintiff does not a have protected liberty interest in the processing his appeals, and therefore, he 

cannot pursue a claim for denial of due process with respect to the handling or resolution of his 

appeals. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 

639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988)).

Plaintiff therefore fails to state a due process claim against Defendant Hodges for the 

removal of the catalog attached to his appeal. This cannot be cured by amendment.

3. Property

The main issue in Plaintiff’s complaint appears to be the confiscation of certain mail and the 

alleged “theft” of his postage stamps. It is unclear whether the stamps are actually being stolen, or if 

they are connected to the confiscation of his incoming mail. 

Case 1:14-cv-01609-DLB Document 16 Filed 09/22/15 Page 4 of 7
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

As the Court noted in the prior screening order, the Due Process Clause is not violated by the 

random, unauthorized deprivation of property so long as the state provides an adequate postdeprivation remedy. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 

816-17 (9th Cir. 1994). Plaintiff has an adequate post-deprivation remedy under California law and 

therefore, he may not pursue a due process claim arising out of the unlawful confiscation of his 

personal property. Barnett, 31 F.3d at 816-17 (citing Cal. Gov’t Code §§810-895).

To the extent that Plaintiff’s property is being confiscated pursuant to a prison regulation, i.e. 

a regulation prohibiting certain types of photos, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment protects him from being deprived of property without due process of law, Wolff v. 

McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556, 94 S.Ct. 2963 (1974), and he has a protected interest in his personal 

property, Hansen v. May, 502 F.2d 728, 730 (9th Cir. 1974). Authorized, intentional deprivations of 

property are actionable under the Due Process Clause, see Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 532, 

n.13, 104 S.Ct. 3194 (1984); Quick v. Jones, 754 F.2d 1521, 1524 (9th Cir. 1985), but the Due 

Process Clause is violated only when the agency “prescribes and enforces forfeitures of property 

without underlying statutory authority and competent procedural protections,” Nevada Dept. of 

Corrections v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Vance v. Barrett, 345 F.3d 1083, 

1090 (9th Cir. 2003)) (internal quotations omitted), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 1823 (2012).

Prisoners have a liberty interest in receiving both personal mail and publications and are 

entitled to “minimum procedural safeguards” when deprived of that interest. Krug v. Lutz, 329 F.3d 

692, 696-97 (9th Cir.2003) (citing Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 40 L.Ed.2d 

224 (1974)). Prisoners must, therefore, be afforded (1) notice of a mail rejection, (2) a reasonable 

opportunity to appeal the rejection, and (3) review by an independent official. See Martinez, 416 

U.S. at 418-19; Krug, 329 F.3d at 697; Frost, 197 F.3d at 353.

Plaintiff seems to suggest that his photos were improperly characterized as “nude” photos 

and therefore disallowed under prison regulations. However, he fails to allege any facts supporting a 

claim that he was denied the procedural process he was due. In fact, Plaintiff attaches numerous 

Notifications of Disapproval of Mail, which set forth the mail disallowed and the reason for the 

disallowance. Plaintiff filed numerous Requests for Interviews about his disallowed mail, as well as 

Case 1:14-cv-01609-DLB Document 16 Filed 09/22/15 Page 5 of 7
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

6

at least one administrative grievance. Plaintiff’s evidence therefore shows that he received the 

process he was due- notice of a mail rejection, a reasonable opportunity to appeal the rejection, and 

review by an independent official. The fact that Plaintiff’s personal property was confiscated and 

has yet to be returned, alone, is not sufficient to support a plausible due process claim. Greene, 648 

F.3d at 1019.

Similarly, Plaintiff’s disagreement with the characterization of the photos does not state a due 

process claim. Plaintiff argues that his photos are not nude photos, and attaches documents from 

Stable Entertainment stating that they do not provide nude photos. Neither Plaintiff’s disagreement, 

nor Stable Entertainment’s description, however, is relevant to the prison’s application of a 

regulation.

Given the evidence attached to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint showing that he received 

the process to which he was due, as well as his failure to allege any facts contending otherwise, this 

claim cannot be cured by amendment. 

4. Defendant Jenkins

As explained above, to state a claim under section 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each 

defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77, 129 

S.Ct. at 1949; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. 

City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. 

Here, Plaintiff does not include any factual allegations against Defendant Jenkins and he has 

therefore failed to link him to any allegedly unconstitutional conduct. Plaintiff was informed of this 

deficiency in the prior screening order, but he has failed to correct the issue.

D. ORDER

Plaintiff does not state any cognizable claims. Given the nature of the deficiencies, the Court 

finds that further leave to amend is not warranted. 

///

///

///

///

Case 1:14-cv-01609-DLB Document 16 Filed 09/22/15 Page 6 of 7
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

7

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO 

AMEND for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted. 

This terminates this action in its entirety. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 22, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01609-DLB Document 16 Filed 09/22/15 Page 7 of 7