Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00778/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00778-2/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

JAMALL DRANE,

Plaintiff,

v.

N. GRANNIS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-00778-AWI DLB-P

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

(Doc. 1)

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. Plaintiff filed this action on June 15, 2005. 

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). 

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

Case 1:05-cv-00778-AWI-DLB Document 10 Filed 01/09/06 Page 1 of 6
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

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

U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citingConley 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 North Kern State Prison and

Pleasant Valley State Prison, where plaintiff is presently incarcerated. Plaintiff names Nancy

Grannis, Chief of Inmate Appeals; Appeals Coordinators T. Hudgins, R. Shannon and T. Taxdahl;

and the Wardens of North Kern State Prison and Pleasant Valley State Prison. Plaintiff is seeking

money damages.

C. Plaintiff’s Claims

1. Failure to Protect

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that in April 2004, he was an inmate at North Kern State

Prison. Plaintiff contends that during this time, correctional guards named as Does 1 through 15,

permitted him to be attacked by a general population inmate possessing a weapon which resulted in

serious personal injury to plaintiff. Plaintiff asserts that during this time, these correctional guards

engaged in a wide spread custom of terrorizing sensitive needs inmates. Plaintiff alleges that Does

1 through 15 were deliberately indifferent to his safety and permitted foreseeable attacks by inmates

in the general population. Plaintiff alleges these attacks were permitted based on defendants’

resentment for and disapproval of inmates in protective custody. Plaintiff contends that after his

attack, defendants conspired to create false reports regarding plaintiff’s injuries to conceal their own

culpability.

To constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, prison

conditions must involve “the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452

U.S. 337, 347 (1981). Although prison conditions may be restrictive and harsh, prison officials must

Case 1:05-cv-00778-AWI-DLB Document 10 Filed 01/09/06 Page 2 of 6
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

provide prisoners with food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety. Id;

Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1107 (9th Cir. 1986); Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246

(9th Cir. 1982). Where a prisoner alleges injuries stemming from unsafe conditions of confinement,

prison officials may be held liable only if they acted with “deliberate indifference to a substantial risk

of serious harm.” Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Prison officials have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect inmates from physical abuse.

Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d at 1250-51; Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994). To establish

a violation ofthis duty, the prisoner must establish that prison officials were “deliberately indifferent

to a serious threat to the inmate’s safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. at 834. The deliberate

indifference standard involves an objective and a subjective prong. First, the alleged deprivation

must be, in objective terms, “sufficiently serious.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. at 834(citing Wilson

v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)). Second, the prison official must “know of and disregard an

excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Id. at 837.

Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to give rise to a claim for relief under section 1983 for

violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff’s allegations concerning defendants’ failure to protect

him from attack are very general. Plaintiff does not explain the attack in any detail and therefore he

fails to sufficiently allege that defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his safety.

Although allegations that plaintiff was attacked may be a sufficient basis for an Eighth Amendment

claim, plaintiff’s allegations do not support a claim that of the defendants “[knew] of and

disregard[ed] an excessive risk to inmate health or safety . . . .” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837.

“Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard.” Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1060. Plaintiff must provide

more detail regarding his claims against the named defendants. 

A plaintiff’s complaint must satisfy the requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a),

which calls for a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to

relief.” Rule 8(a) expresses the principle of notice-pleading, whereby the pleader need only give the

opposing party fair notice of a claim. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). Rule 8(a) does

not require an elaborate recitation of every fact a plaintiff may ultimately rely upon at trial, but only

a statement sufficient to “give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the

Case 1:05-cv-00778-AWI-DLB Document 10 Filed 01/09/06 Page 3 of 6
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

grounds upon which it rests.” Id. at 47. Rule 8(a) also requires that the plaintiff give notice of the

relief which he seeks from the defendants. Plaintiff’s allegations regarding defendants’ liability for

his injuries fail to satisfy the requirements of Rule 8(a).

2. Inmate Appeals - Access to the Courts

Plaintiff alleges that following his assault, he attempted to comply with the inmate appeals

process with regard to defendants’ conduct; however, defendants Taxdahl failed to respond to his

first appeal and then rejected his second appeal because it was “unclear” and duplicative. Plaintiff

requested intervention by defendant Grannis. Notwithstanding instructions from Grannis to assist

plaintiff with the appeals process, defendants Shannon and Hudgins again rejected plaintiff’s appeal

on March 28, 2005 and again on April 24, 2005. Plaintiff alleges that he then corresponded with

defendant Yates, who failed to respond. Plaintiff contends that defendants, by these actions

infringed upon his constitutional rights. 

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. An inmate claiming interference with or denial of access to the courts must show that he

suffered an actual injury. Id. 

“[A prison] grievance procedure is a procedural right only, it does not confer any substantive

right upon the inmates.” Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993) (citing Azeez v.

DeRobertis, 568 F. Supp. 8, 10 (N.D. Ill. 1982)); see also Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d. 850, 860 (9th

Cir. 2003) (no liberty interest in processing of appeals because no entitlement to a specific grievance

procedure); Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001) (existence of grievance procedure

confers no liberty interest on prisoner); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). Actions

in reviewing prisoner’s administrative appeal cannot serve as the basis for liability under a § 1983

action. Buckley, 997 F.2d at 495. With respect to the mandatory exhaustion requirement set forth

in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), interference with plaintiff’s attempts to exhaust via the appeals process

would give rise to a cognizable access to the courts claim only if and when plaintiff suffers an actual

injury by having his claim or action dismissed for failure to exhaust. Until such an injury actually

Case 1:05-cv-00778-AWI-DLB Document 10 Filed 01/09/06 Page 4 of 6
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

occurs, it is pure speculation that plaintiff’s inability to exhaust will result in the loss of his claim

or action. See e.g., Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d 620, 631 (9th Cir. 2005) (exhaustion occurred when

appeals coordinator exercised discretion to screen out appeal as untimely and no further process

remained available to the inmate); Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523, 529 (3d Cir. 2003) (recognizing

that a remedy prison officials prevent a prisoner from utilizing is not an available remedy); Miller

v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736, 740 (8th Cir. 2001) (a remedy prison officials prevent a prisoner from

utilizing is not an available remedy). Defendants’ actions stemming from plaintiff’s attempts to

pursue his inmate appeals do not give rise to a claim for relief for violation of the Due Process

Clause, as plaintiff does not have a protected interest at stake with respect to utilization of the

appeals process. Further, plaintiff’s allegations concerning his attempts to utilize the inmate appeals

process do not give rise to any claims for relief under section 1983 for denial of access to the courts

or for violation of any other constitutional right.

D. Conclusion

The court finds that plaintiff’s complaint does not contain any claims upon which relief may

be granted. The court will provide plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended complaint.

Plaintiff is informed he must demonstrate in his complaint how the conditions complained

of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal 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 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). 

Finally, plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended complaint be

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 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.

Case 1:05-cv-00778-AWI-DLB Document 10 Filed 01/09/06 Page 5 of 6
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

6

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state any claims

upon which relief may be granted;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall file an

amended complaint; and

4. If plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, the court

will recommend that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 6, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00778-AWI-DLB Document 10 Filed 01/09/06 Page 6 of 6