Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-05628/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-05628-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DONALD R. HUMPHREYS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

R BINKELE, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 17-cv-05628-HSG 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; DENYING 

MOTIONS FOR PROSECUTORIAL 

INVESTIGATION; DENYING 

MOTION FOR ORDER TO STOP 

STEALING MAIL 

Dkt. Nos. 61, 62, 64, 65 

INTRODUCTION 

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Correctional Training Facility proceeding pro se, filed this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His second amended complaint (Dkt. No. 55) is now 

before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review 

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner 

seeks redress from a governmental entity, or from an officer or an 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. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 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). 

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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not 

necessary; the statement need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the 

Case 4:17-cv-05628-HSG Document 66 Filed 06/03/19 Page 1 of 5
2 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). 

“[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, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must 

proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two 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. Prison Litigation Reform Act’s Exhaustion Requirement 

Section 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) provides that 

“[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any 

other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until 

such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Prisoners are 

required to exhaust the available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock, 549 

U.S. 199, 211 (2007). The exhaustion requirement applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison 

life. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). Exhaustion is required regardless of the relief 

sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process, unless “the relevant 

administrative procedure lacks authority to provide any relief or to take any action whatsoever in 

response to a complaint.” Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 736, 741 (2001); Ross v. Blake, 136 

S.Ct. 1850, 1857, 1859 (2016). An action must be dismissed unless the prisoner exhausts his 

available administrative remedies before he or she files suit, even if the prisoner fully exhausts 

while the suit is pending. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002); see also 

Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2006) (where administrative remedies are not 

exhausted before prisoner sends complaint to court, it will be dismissed even if exhaustion is 

completed by the time complaint is actually filed). But a prisoner satisfies the exhaustion 

requirement as long as he exhausts his administrative remedies prior to filing an amended 

Case 4:17-cv-05628-HSG Document 66 Filed 06/03/19 Page 2 of 5
3 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

complaint. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2010) (PLRA’s exhaustion 

requirement was satisfied for new claims raised in amended complaint which arose after original 

complaint was filed where administrative remedies for new claims were exhausted prior to filing 

of amended complaint). If the Court concludes that a plaintiff has failed to exhaust his or her 

administrative remedies, the proper remedy is dismissal without prejudice of the portions of the 

complaint barred by section 1997e(a). Jones, 549 U.S. at 223–24. 

“The California prison grievance system has three levels of review; an inmate exhausts 

administrative remedies by obtaining a decision at each level.” Reyes v. Smith, 810 F.3d 654, 657 

(9th Cir. 2016) (citing 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 3084.1(b) (2011) and Harvey v. Jordan, 605 F.3d 

681, 683 (9th Cir. 2010)); see also 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 3084.7(d)(3) (“The third level of review 

exhausts administrative remedies . . .”). 

C. Second Amended Complaint 

It appears from the face of the second amended complaint (“SAC”) that Plaintiff did not 

exhaust his available administrative remedies with respect to the claims raised in the SAC before 

filing. The SAC, filed on February 22, 2019, alleges that between July 2018 and February 2019, 

correctional officers Baldin, Maldonald, Cuevas, and Lipatore stole Plaintiff’s mail or ordered 

other officers not to distribute his mail to him; prevented Plaintiff from receiving his legal mail; 

and retaliated against Plaintiff for filing lawsuits against Officer Baldin by withholding his mail.1 

ECF No. 55 at 4–13. Plaintiff does not claim to have exhausted administrative remedies and, 

given that an inmate must proceed through three levels of review to exhaust his or her 

administrative remedies under the CDCR’s grievance system, it is unlikely that a grievance filed 

regarding constitutional violations in early 2019 would be exhausted prior to the filing of the SAC. 

Accordingly, the Court will order Plaintiff to file a response within 28 days, explaining why this 

action should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Such a dismissal 

would be without prejudice, so that Plaintiff could refile the action once he finished exhausting 

those remedies. 

 

1

 Plaintiff has also named as defendants Warden Koenig and Chief Deputy Warden R. Binkele, but 

he makes no allegations against them in the SAC. 

Case 4:17-cv-05628-HSG Document 66 Filed 06/03/19 Page 3 of 5
4 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

D. Pending Motions 

 Plaintiff has filed three motions requesting that the Court appoint a prosecutor to 

investigate why he has been unable to receive his mail. Dkt. Nos. 61, 62 and 65. Plaintiff’s 

motions are DENIED. A court’s authority to appoint a special prosecutor is extremely limited and 

is authorized only when necessary to vindicate the court’s own authority. United States v. Arpaio, 

906 F.3d 800, 806 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Young v. U.S. ex rel Vuitton Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 

793–96, 800–01 (1987)). 

 Plaintiff has also filed a motion requesting that the Court order prison officials to cease and 

desist from stealing his mail, which the Court construes as a request for a preliminary injunction. 

Dkt. No. 64. The Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) restricts the power of the 

court to grant prospective relief in any action involving prison conditions. See 18 U.S.C. § 

3626(a); Oluwa v. Gomez, 133 F.3d 1237, 1239 (9th Cir. 1998). “A preliminary injunction is ‘an 

extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear 

showing, carries the burden of persuasion.’” Lopez v. Brewer, et al., 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th 

Cir. 2012) (citation omitted) (emphasis in original). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction 

must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm 

in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an 

injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 

7, 20 (2008). Plaintiff has not established that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim. 

Rather, it appears that he may not have administratively exhausted his claim. Plaintiff’s request 

for a preliminary injunction enjoining prison officials from stealing his mail is DENIED. Dkt. No. 

64. 

E. Miscellaneous Filings 

 Plaintiff has filed over fifteen letters, notices, declarations, and amendments in the record. 

See Dkt. Nos. 17, 22–24, 26, 31, 36, 39, 41, 43, 44, 52, 53, 58–60. Plaintiff uses these filings to 

report to the Court constitutional violations as they occur. Plaintiff is cautioned that such filings 

serve no legal purpose, and only serve to clutter the docket and waste judicial resources. As 

Plaintiff has been previously advised, a complaint is a self-contained document and may not 

Case 4:17-cv-05628-HSG Document 66 Filed 06/03/19 Page 4 of 5
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

incorporate by reference any parts of prior complaints or other filings. Cf. Hal-Roach Studios, Inc. 

v. Feiner and Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (“an amended pleading supersedes 

the original”). In screening Plaintiff’s second amended complaint and any future complaints, the 

Court will only consider the complaint itself, and will not consider filings in the record. In 

addition, the time to support a claim with evidence is in opposition to a dispositive motion or at 

trial. The court is not a depository for Plaintiff’s prematurely filed evidence. Plaintiff’s letters, 

notice, declarations, and amendments will not be considered by the Court unless they are filed in 

connection with a request for relief, or in opposition to such a request. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows. 

1. Within twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause 

why this action should not be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust available 

administrative remedies. Failure to respond in accordance with this order in the time 

provided will result in dismissal of this action without prejudice for failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies and without further notice to Plaintiff. Again, Plaintiff may refile the 

case after he has exhausted his administrative remedies. 

2. Plaintiff’s motions requesting that the Court appoint a prosecutor to investigate 

why he has been unable to receive his mail are DENIED. Dkt. Nos. 61, 62, 65. Plaintiff’s motion 

requesting that the Court order prison officials to stop stealing his mail is DENIED. Dkt. No. 64. 

This order terminates Dkt. Nos. 61, 62, 64 and 65. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 3, 2019 

______________________________________ 

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:17-cv-05628-HSG Document 66 Filed 06/03/19 Page 5 of 5