Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05156/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05156-0/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HENRY J. LUGO,

Plaintiff,

v.

C.D.C. OFFICER BANUELOS, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 5156 AWI DLB P 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro per and in forma pauperis with a civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Pending before the Court is the complaint, filed

January 23, 2004. 

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); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the Court determines that the complaint fails to

Case 1:04-cv-05156-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 05/19/06 Page 1 of 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

2

state a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint

can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9 Cir. 2000) (en banc). th

In the instant case, plaintiff bring action against Correctional Officers Banuelos, Urena,

Stailey and Diaz. Plaintiff alleges that in reprisal for his filing inmate appeals and lawsuits, these

officers have interfered with his legal work, confiscated his legal documents, denied his access to

the law library and harassed him. He alleges that on January 13, 2004, defendant Diaz banned

him from the law library.

An allegation of retaliation against a prisoner's First Amendment right to file a prison

grievance is sufficient to support claim under Section 1983. Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1288

(9th Cir.2003). “Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails

five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an

inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the

inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a

legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005). The

court must " 'afford appropriate deference and flexibility' to prison officials in the evaluation of

proffered legitimate penological reasons for conduct alleged to be retaliatory." Pratt v. Rowland,

65 F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir.1995) (quoting Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 482, 115 S.Ct. 2293 

(1995)). The burden is on plaintiff to demonstrate "that there were no legitimate correctional

purposes motivating the actions he complains of." Pratt, 65 F.3d at 808.

Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations that defendants took the alleged actions against him in

“reprisal” for filing 602 appeals and lawsuits are insufficient to give rise to a claim for relief

under section 1983 for retaliation. Plaintiff has failed to describe any link between the protected

action and the alleged retaliatory conduct other than his own conclusory statements.

Further, plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to give rise to s claim for denial of access

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

Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 346 (1996). The right of access is merely the right to bring to court a

grievance the inmate wishes to present, and 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

Case 1:04-cv-05156-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 05/19/06 Page 2 of 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

3

grievances or to litigate effectively once in court. Id. 

Inmates do not have the right to a law library or legal assistance. Id. at 351. Law libraries

and legal assistance programs are only the means of ensuring access to the courts. Id. Because

inmates do not have “an abstract, freestanding right to a law library or legal assistance, an inmate

cannot establish relevant actual injury by establishing that his prison’s law library or legal

assistance program is subpar in some theoretical sense.” Id. Rather, an inmate claiming

interference with or denial of access to the courts must show that he suffered an actual injury. Id. 

Plaintiff has not alleged facts giving rise to a colorable claim for relief under section 1983

for denial of access to the courts. His general allegations of denial of access to the law library do

not give rise to a claim for denial of access to the court system. Plaintiff must allege that

defendants’ conduct resulted in an actual injury.

Plaintiff’s complaint, as drafted, does not state any cognizable claims for releif under

section 1983 against the named defendants and therefore must be dismissed. The Court will,

however, grant leave to file an amended complaint. Failure to cure the deficiencies will result in

dismissal of this action without leave to amend.

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, 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). 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). 

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 15-220 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

Case 1:04-cv-05156-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 05/19/06 Page 3 of 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

4

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 complaint is dismissed; 

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a section 1983 complaint form

for use by pro se prisoners;

3. 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 dismissal of this action for failure to state a claim and

failure to comply with the court’s order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 19, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05156-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 05/19/06 Page 4 of 4