Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02586/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02586-0/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WARREN C. GREEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. INFANTE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-2586 JAM CKD P

ORDER

I. Introduction

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 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 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). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the 

initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. 

Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding 

month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded by 

Case 2:15-cv-02586-JAM-CKD Document 6 Filed 02/04/16 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

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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

II. Screening Standard

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). 

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.

In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 

“naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 

of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, 

“[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). Furthermore, a claim 

upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A 

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw 

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 

at 1949. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 

the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007), 

and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 

U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

////

Case 2:15-cv-02586-JAM-CKD Document 6 Filed 02/04/16 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

III. Analysis

Plaintiff alleges that officials at California Health Care Facility violated his federal 

Constitutional rights to due process and access to the courts. (ECF No. 1 at 4.) After his 

television was broken in a prison transfer, plaintiff was advised to file a CDCR 22 form. (Id.; see 

Ex. B.) Based on prison officials’ advice, plaintiff failed to file a 602 inmate appeal before the 

time limit for such a filing expired. (Id.) His subsequent 602 appeals were rejected on procedural 

grounds. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges he was “manipulated” by prison officials and, as a result, cannot 

exhaust administrative remedies as to the broken television.1 (Id. at 7, 10-12.)

Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable § 1983 claim on the facts alleged. First, inmates have 

no Constitutional right to a specific prison grievance procedure. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 

850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003), citing Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); see also

McCoy v. Roe, 509 Fed. Appx. 660, 660 (9th Cir. Feb.19, 2013) (affirming dismissal of claims 

arising from defendants’ handling of prisoner’s grievances) (citing Ramirez).

Second, plaintiff does not plead the elements of an access-to-courts claim. See Lewis v. 

Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-50, 353 (1996) (prisoner alleging a violation of his right of access to 

the courts must demonstrate that he has suffered “actual injury,” i.e., “demonstrate that a 

nonfrivolous legal claim had been frustrated or was being impeded.”). Specifically, he does not 

appear to have an underlying due process claim concerning his broken television. 

A negligent or intentional deprivation of property by a state employee does not constitute 

a violation of federal due process if the state provides a meaningful post-deprivation remedy for 

the loss. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 

F.3d 734, 738 (9th Cir. 2001). The California Legislature has provided a remedy for tort claims 

against public officials in the California Government Code, §§ 900, et seq. Because plaintiff has 

an adequate state law remedy for being negligently or intentionally deprived of his television, no 

 

1

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that a prisoner exhaust available administrative 

remedies before bringing a federal action concerning prison conditions. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) 

(2008). Exhaustion must be “proper.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93 (2006). This means that 

a grievant must use all steps the prison holds out, enabling the prison to reach the merits of the 

issue. Id. at 90. Prisoners need comply only with the prison’s own grievance procedures to 

properly exhaust under the PLRA. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007).

Case 2:15-cv-02586-JAM-CKD Document 6 Filed 02/04/16 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

4

federal due process claim was impeded by defendants’ actions. Thus plaintiff does not allege the 

“actual injury” element of an access-to-courts claim. 

For these reasons, the complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. However, 

plaintiff will have one opportunity to file an amended complaint.

IV. Leave to Amend

Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy, a 

complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones 

v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at 

least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support plaintiff’s 

claim. Id. 

Plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions complained of have resulted in a 

deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). 

Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved. There 

can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection 

between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 

(1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 

(9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil 

rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 

make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a 

general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 

F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no 

longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original 

complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted.

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. All fees 

Case 2:15-cv-02586-JAM-CKD Document 6 Filed 02/04/16 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

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

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith.

3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed. 

4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 

complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the docket number 

assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”; plaintiff must file an original and 

two copies of the amended complaint; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with 

this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

Dated: February 4, 2016

2 / gree2586.14new

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-02586-JAM-CKD Document 6 Filed 02/04/16 Page 5 of 5