Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05560/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05560-0/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 

SCOTT WILLIAM DAVIS, BB0517, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SONOMA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, et al., 

Defendant(s). 

Case No. 18-cv-05560-CRB (PR) 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner at the Correctional Training Facility (CTF) in Soledad, California, 

filed a pro se Second Amended Complaint (SAC) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that after he 

was sentenced to state prison on August 5, 2016 he was taken to Sonoma County Jail (SCJ) to 

await transfer to the state department of corrections. While at SCJ, plaintiff tried to file an appeal 

on his own after he fired his attorney but was unable to do so because he could not access certain 

legal materials. He filed several grievances to gain access to legal materials he argued he needed 

to file an appeal on his own, but the grievances and access to the materials were denied. Plaintiff 

hired a new attorney to file an appeal but claims that he was denied his constitutional rights of 

access to the courts and to self-representation because he could not file an appeal on his own. 

DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review 

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of 

the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. 

§ 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 

F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Case 3:18-cv-05560-CRB Document 13 Filed 06/20/19 Page 1 of 4
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

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 alleged 

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 

42, 48 (1988). 

B. Legal Claims 

It is well established that prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts. See 

Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). But to 

establish a claim for any violation of the right of access to the courts, a prisoner must prove that 

there was an inadequacy in the prison’s legal access program that caused him an actual injury. See 

Lewis, 518 U.S. at 349-51. A prisoner must show that the inadequacy in the prison’s program 

hindered his efforts to pursue a non-frivolous claim concerning his conviction or conditions of 

confinement to prove an actual injury. See id. at 351, 354-55. 

In order for plaintiff to prove an actual injury here, he must show that denying him access 

to the legal materials he sought at SCJ prevented him from appealing his conviction. See, e.g., 

Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 343 (9th Cir. 2010) (prisoner demonstrated that denying him law 

library access while on lockdown resulted in actual injury because he was prevented from 

appealing his conviction). But plaintiff cannot make this showing because he was not prevented 

from appealing his conviction. Plaintiff hired a new attorney and the attorney filed an appeal of 

plaintiff’s conviction. Plaintiff does not state a claim for violation of the right of access to the 

courts. Afterall, just the availability of counsel satisfies the constitutional obligation to provide 

meaningful access to the courts. See Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Plaintiff argues that he was denied his constitutional right to self-representation because he 

was unable to appeal his conviction on his own and had to resort to hiring a new attorney to appeal 

his conviction. But the constitutional right to self-representation recognized in Faretta v. 

California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), is “confined to the right to defend oneself at trial.” Martinez v. 

Court of Appeal of California, 528 U.S. 152, 154 (2000). Neither the holding nor the reasoning of 

Faretta requires states to recognize a constitutional right to self-representation on direct appeal 

from a criminal conviction. Id. at 163. Plaintiff does not state a claim for violation of the right to 

self-representation. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the SAC is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failure 

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

Case 3:18-cv-05560-CRB Document 13 Filed 06/20/19 Page 2 of 4
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

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 20, 2019 

______________________________________ 

CHARLES R. BREYER 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:18-cv-05560-CRB Document 13 Filed 06/20/19 Page 3 of 4
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SCOTT WILLIAM DAVIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SONOMA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, 

et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:18-cv-05560-CRB 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California. 

That on June 20, 2019, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 

Scott William Davis ID: #BB0517 

Correctional Training Facility

P.O. Box 705 

Soledad, CA 93960 

Dated: June 20, 2019 

Susan Y. Soong 

Clerk, United States District Court 

By:________________________ 

Lashanda Scott, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable CHARLES R. BREYER 

Case 3:18-cv-05560-CRB Document 13 Filed 06/20/19 Page 4 of 4