Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00239/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00239-2/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

NICHOLAS PATRICK,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O REYNAGA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00239-LJO-SAB-PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO 

STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR 

RELIEF

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. This action was referred to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Currently 

before the Court is Plaintiff‟s complaint, filed February 22, 2016.

I.

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 on which relief may be granted,” or 

that “seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B).

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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate 

Case 1:16-cv-00239-LJO-JDP Document 12 Filed 05/20/16 Page 1 of 8
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

that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s rights. Jones v. 

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir.2002). 

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings 

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 

1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012)(citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff‟s claims must be 

facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer 

that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss 

v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant 

has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are „merely consistent with‟ a defendant‟s 

liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 

F.3d at 969. 

II.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (CDCR) at Wasco State Prison, names as Defendants correctional officials 

employed by the CDCR at Wasco. Plaintiff names the following individual Defendants: 

Correctional Officer (C/O) Reynaga; C/O Ziegler; C/O Hurd; C/O Petroff; C/O Hernandez; C/O 

Rios, C/O Solis; C/O Morales, C/O Dominguez; C/O Buttram. Although difficult to discern, 

Plaintiff‟s claims appear to stem from Defendants‟ alleged interference with Plaintiff‟s legal mail 

and ability to litigate a lawsuit. Plaintiff articulates his claims as follows: equal protection based 

upon race and sexual orientation, privacy (mishandling mail), single cell status. 

Plaintiff‟s complaint consists of a rambling narrative, interspersed with legal arguments 

and conclusory allegations. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Reynaga “mishandled my 

incoming/outgoing mail,” which resulted in Plaintiff not meeting deadlines. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) 

Plaintiff refers to a timely notice of appeal, and a lack of legal representation. Plaintiff alleges 

that he sent a letter to the ACLU regarding all of the named Defendants in this action. Plaintiff 

references a claim he filed regarding withdrawing funds from his inmate trust account. Plaintiff 

refers to Defendants Ziegler, Hurd and Reynaga, and alleges that they were somehow involved 

Case 1:16-cv-00239-LJO-JDP Document 12 Filed 05/20/16 Page 2 of 8
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

with Plaintiff‟s lost laundry. Plaintiff alleges that his mail has been opened and read. Plaintiff 

alleges that sensitive needs yard (SNY) inmates are treated differently than general population 

inmates. Plaintiff alleges that his property was improperly inventories when he was received 

into CDCR custody from the Orange County Jail. Plaintiff lists several of his inmate grievances, 

and appears to allege that Defendants have interfered with the processing of his grievances. 

Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Hurd harassed him during mealtime. Specifically, 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Hurd enforced a rule against Plaintiff that was not enforced 

against other inmates. Defendant Hurd did not allow Plaintiff to use a second drink container, 

and only allowed Plaintiff to use the state-issued drink container for each meal. Plaintiff also 

alleges that in response to Plaintiff‟s statement to another inmate, Hurd handcuffed Plaintiff and 

escorted him back to his cell. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants intentionally denied him his 

coffee during breakfast release. Plaintiff also alleges that he is not receiving sufficient writing 

material as required by prison regulations. Plaintiff specifically alleges that he, and other 

inmates, do not always get weekly paper and ink fillers. 

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Civil Rights Act

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). “Section 1983 is not itself a source 

of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere 

conferred.” Crowley v. Nevada ex rel. Nevada Sec‟y of State, 678 F.3d 730, 734 (9th Cir. 

2012)(citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989))(internal quotation marks 

omitted). To state a claim, Plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating the existence of a link, or 

causal connection, between each defendant‟s actions or omissions and a violation of his federal 

rights. Lemire v. California Dep‟t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2013); 

Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011).

Case 1:16-cv-00239-LJO-JDP Document 12 Filed 05/20/16 Page 3 of 8
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

Here, Plaintiff has failed to link any of the named individual Defendants to any specific 

conduct that deprived Plaintiff of a protected interest. Throughout the complaint, Plaintiff 

asserts legal conclusions about the conduct of Defendants in general. Plaintiff need not, 

however, set forth legal arguments in support of his claims. In order to hold an individual 

defendant liable, Plaintiff must name the individual defendant, describe where that defendant is 

employed and in what capacity, and explain how that defendant acted under color of state law. 

Plaintiff should state clearly, in his own words, what happened. Plaintiff must describe what 

each defendant, by name, did to violate the particular right described by Plaintiff. Plaintiff has 

not done so here. The complaint must therefore be dismissed. Plaintiff will, however, be 

granted leave to file an amended complaint. The Court will provide Plaintiff with guidance in 

form of the following legal standards.

B. Mail

Prisoners have “a First Amendment right to send and receive mail.” Witherow v. Paff, 52 

F.3d 264, 265 (9th Cir. 1995). To the extent that Plaintiff is alleging that his mail is opened and 

inspected, he is advised that prison regulations relating to the regulation of incoming mail are 

analyzed under the reasonableness standard set forth in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91 

(1987). Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 413-14 (1989). The regulation is valid if it is 

reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. Turner, 482 U.S. at 89. In determining the 

reasonableness of the regulation, a court must consider the following factors: (1) whether there is 

a “valid, rational connection between the regulation and the legitimate government interest put 

forward to justify it,” (2) “whether there are alternative means of exercising the right, (3) the 

impact that the “accommodation of the asserted constitutional right will have on guards and other 

inmates,” and (4) “the absence of ready alternatives.” Turner, 482 U.S. at 89-90.

Isolated incidents of mail interference or tampering will not support a claim under section 

1983 for a violation of Plaintiff‟s constitutional rights. See Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 351 

(2nd Cir. 2003); Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 431 (8th Cir. 1997); Smith v. Maschner, 899 

F.2d 940, 944 (10th Cir. 1990).

Case 1:16-cv-00239-LJO-JDP Document 12 Filed 05/20/16 Page 4 of 8
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

C. Equal Protection

The Equal Protection Clause requires that persons who are similarly situated should be 

treated alike. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985); 

Hartmann v. California Dep‟t. of Corr. Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1123 (9th Cir. 2013); Furnace v. 

Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2013); Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 891 (9th Cir. 

2008). To state a claim, Plaintiff must show that Defendants intentionally discriminated against 

him based on his membership in a protected class. Hartmann, 707 F.3d at 1123; Furnace, 705 

F.3d at 1030; Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003); Lee v. City of Los 

Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9th Cir. 2001).

D. Deprivation of Property

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects prisoners from being 

deprived of property without due process of law, Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974), 

and prisoners have a protected interest in their 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 (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).

E. Verbal Harassment

Allegations of threats and harassment do not state a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. See Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996)(assaultive comments by prison 

guard not enough to implicate Eighth Amendment); Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 

1987)(mere threat does not constitute constitutional wrong). Plaintiff‟s allegations do not rise to 

the level of a constitutional violation. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(prisoners cannot bring civil suits 

in federal court for mental or emotional injuries suffered while incarcerated unless they first 

show that they suffered physical injury). 

Case 1:16-cv-00239-LJO-JDP Document 12 Filed 05/20/16 Page 5 of 8
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

F. Access to Courts

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

518 U.S. 343, 346 (1996); Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir. 2011); Phillips v. 

Hust, 588 F.3d 652, 655 (9th Cir. 2009). However, to state a viable claim for relief, Plaintiff 

must show that he suffered an actual injury, which requires “actual prejudice to contemplated or 

existing litigation.” Nevada Dep‟t of Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2011)(citing 

Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348)(internal quotation marks omitted); Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 

403, 415(2002). 

G. Unrelated Claims

Plaintiff is raising numerous claims against different defendants based on different events 

occurring at different times. Plaintiff may not bring unrelated claims against unrelated parties 

in a single action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a), 20(a)(2); Owens v. Hinsley, 653 F.3d 950, 952 (7th 

Cir. 2011); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff may bring a claim 

against multiple defendants so long as (1) the claim arises out of the same transaction or 

occurrence, or series of transactions and occurrences, and (2) there are common questions of 

law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2); Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1351 (9th Cir. 1997); 

Desert Empire Bank v. Insurance Co. of North America, 623 F.2d 1371, 1375 (9th Cir. 1980). 

Only if the defendants are properly joined under Rule 20(a) will the Court review the other 

claims to determine if they may be joined under Rule 18(a), which permits the joinder of 

multiple claims against the same party.

Plaintiff‟s claims fail to comply with the rules regarding joinder of claims. For example, 

Plaintiff appears to be pursuing claims against certain defendants for failure interference with his 

mail while simultaneously pursuing claims against certain defendants for harassing him during 

meal times. Plaintiff may not pursue unrelated claims against unrelated defendants in this action. 

If Plaintiff elects to amend his complaint, Plaintiff shall choose which claims he wishes to pursue 

his action. If Plaintiff does not do so and his amended complaint again sets forth unrelated 

claims which violate joinder rules, the Court may dismiss this action for failure to comply with 

Case 1:16-cv-00239-LJO-JDP Document 12 Filed 05/20/16 Page 6 of 8
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

Court orders. 

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff‟s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may 

be granted. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days. Noll 

v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff may not change the nature of this 

suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 

607 (7th Cir. 2007)(no “buckshot” complaints).

Plaintiff‟s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what 

each defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s constitutional or other federal rights. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678. “The inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the 

duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to 

have caused a constitutional deprivation.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief 

above the speculative level. . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted).

Finally, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, Forsyth v. Humana, 

Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), 

and must be “complete in and of itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading,” 

Local Rule 220. “All causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in 

an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers 

Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk‟s Office shall send to Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

2. Plaintiff‟s complaint, filed February 22, 2016, is dismissed for failure to state a 

claim;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a

first amended complaint; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, the 

Case 1:16-cv-00239-LJO-JDP Document 12 Filed 05/20/16 Page 7 of 8
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

8

Court will recommend that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to 

state a claim and to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 19, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00239-LJO-JDP Document 12 Filed 05/20/16 Page 8 of 8