Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00649/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00649-6/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

 The court did not immediately adopt the Findings and Recommendations because Plaintiff had filed a

1

notice of appeal. The filing of a notice of appeal generally divests a district court of jurisdiction to determine the

“substantial rights” at issue in that action during the pendency of the appeal. Pyrodyne Corp. v. Pyrotronics Corp.,

847 F. 2d 1398, 1403 (9 Cir. 1988). The appeal has been resolved, and the court now turns to the pending Findings th

and Recommendations.

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANA RUSSWORM,

Plaintiff,

vs.

YATES, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-00649-AWI-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 14)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, Dana Russworm (“plaintiff”), is a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to

a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On December 15, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings

and Recommendations that recommended the complaint be dismissed

without leave to amend. The Findings and Recommendations were

served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections to

the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty

(30) days. On December 30, 2005, plaintiff filed objections to

the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.1

Case 1:05-cv-00649-AWI-LJO Document 23 Filed 11/20/06 Page 1 of 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

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this Court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The complaint

alleges that prison officials have denied Plaintiff access to the

courts to pursue his pending state habeas corpus petition. As

explained by the Magistrate Judge, inmates have a fundamental

constitutional right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey,

518 U.S. 343, 346 (1996). However, the right of access is merely

the right to bring to court a grievance, and it is limited to

direct criminal appeals, habeas petitions, and civil rights

actions. Id. at 354. The State is not required to enable the

inmate to discover grievances or to litigate effectively once in

court. Id. Here, the Magistrate Judge found that the complaint

failed to state a claim because Plaintiff was not alleging

interference with his ability to bring a state habeas petition to

the state court; Rather, Plaintiff was alleging interference with

his ability to effectively litigate. The court agree’s with this

analysis of the complaint.

In the objections, Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate

Judge read his complaint too narrowly. Plaintiff alleges that he

has been denied all access to the courts, including the ability

to bring actions. In general, if a complaint is dismissed for

failure to state a claim, leave to amend should be granted unless

the allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged

pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency. Schreiber

Distributing Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., Inc., 806 F.2d 1393,

Case 1:05-cv-00649-AWI-LJO Document 23 Filed 11/20/06 Page 2 of 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

3

1401 (9 Cir. 1986). In addition, pro se incarcerated inmates th

should be given notice of their complaint’s and an opportunity to

amend prior to dismissing an action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203

F.3d 1122 (9 Cir. 2000) (if court determines that complaint th

fails to state claim, leave to amend may be granted to extent

that complaint’s deficiencies can be cured); Noll v. Carlson,

809 F. 2d 1446, 1448 (9 Cir. 1987) (prisoner must be given th

notice of deficiencies and opportunity to amend prior to

dismissing for failure to state a claim). Plaintiff has not been

given the opportunity to amend his complaint. Because

Plaintiff contends in his objections that he does have claims

that allege prison officials prevented him from filing actions

concerning his conviction or prison conditions, the complaint

will be dismissed with leave to amend.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed December 15,

2005, are ADOPTED;

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to

amend;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of

this order, plaintiff shall file an amended complaint

bearing the caption “First Amended Complaint;” and

4. Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint in

compliance with this order will result in this action’s

dismissal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00649-AWI-LJO Document 23 Filed 11/20/06 Page 3 of 3