Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00939/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00939-2/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

WILLIAM MEADOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON,

ET.AL.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-0939-OWW DLB-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE

DISMISSAL OF ACTION

OBJECTIONS DUE MAY 1, 2007

 

I. Screening Order

A. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s amended complaint filed on

May 17, 2006. 

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).

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

Case 1:05-cv-00939-OWW -DLB Document 12 Filed 04/10/07 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

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467

U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957);see also Palmer v. Roosevelt

Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under this

standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg.

Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most

favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395

U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

B. Summary of Plaintiff’s Complaint

The events at issue in the instant action allegedly occurred at California Correctional

Institution, where plaintiff is incarcerated. Plaintiff names Pleasant Valley State Prison Mail Room

Staff and attendants as defendants. Plaintiff alleges that in March 4, 2004, he received Legal Mail

that had been opened by mail room staff outside of his presence in violation of the First, Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments. 

As plaintiff was informed in the Court’s Order of May 1, 2006, the mere fact that prison

officials open and conduct a visual inspection of a prisoner’s legal correspondence does not state a

claim for violation of a prisoner’s constitutional rights. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 576-

77 (1974); Mitchell v. Dupnick, 75 F.3d 517, 523 (9th Cir. 1996). Prison officials may, consistent

with the First Amendment, open mail from attorneys in the presence of the prisoner for visual

inspection. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 576-7 (1974); Sherman v. MacDougall, 656

F.2d 527, 528 (9th Cir. 1981). In Wolff v. McDonnell, the SupremeCourt noted that inspecting mail

from attorneys in the presence of the inmate did all, and perhaps even more, than the Constitution

requires. Id. at 577. The issue of whether or not prison officials may also, consistent with the First

Amendment, open and visually inspect mail from attorneys outside the presence of the prisoner has

not been decided by the Supreme Court or by the Ninth Circuit. However, “[m]ail from the courts,

as contrasted to mail from a prisoner’s lawyer, is not legal mail.” Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083,

1094 (9th Cir. 1996). “All correspondence from a court to a litigant is a public document, which

Case 1:05-cv-00939-OWW -DLB Document 12 Filed 04/10/07 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

prison personnel could if they want inspect in the court’s files.” Id. at 1094 (citing to Martin v.

Brewer, 830 F.2d 76, 78 (7th Cir. 1987)). 

The documentation attached to plaintiff’s amended complaint indicates that the “legal mail”

plaintiff references in his complaint was mail from the Court of Appeal, and therefore it was

permissible for the mail room staff to open it outside of plaintiff’s presence.

In summary, the court finds that plaintiff’s amended complaint does not state any claims upon

which relief may be granted and therefore the court recommends that this action be dismissed in its

entirety. The court does not recommend that leave to amend the complaint be granted in that

plaintiff has been granted the opportunity to file an amended complaint and was unable to cure the

deficiencies identified in the Court’s previous order.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). On or before May 1,

2007, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure

to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order.

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 9, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0h UNI j8 TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00939-OWW -DLB Document 12 Filed 04/10/07 Page 3 of 3