Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00818/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00818-3/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

MARVIN WALL, )

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

WARDEN MCGRATH, et. al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 05-0818 AWI DLB P 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

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

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s complaint filed June 22,

2005. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1).

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 state a claim, leave to amend

Case 1:05-cv-00818-AWI-DLB Document 14 Filed 03/31/06 Page 1 of 5
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

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

Plaintiff names Warden McGrath, Sergeant Rodman and Correctional Officer Buckley as

defendants in this action. Plaintiff states that in May 2000, he was housed in the Psychological

Services Unit at Pelican Bay State Prison where he was harassed by officers. He alleges on April 29,

2003, defendant M. Buckley denied his legal property by alleging it was an unauthorized package

despite it being clearly labeled “Legal Material/Property.” He alleges that defendant G. Rodman

denied his appeal regarding the legal property and authorized it to be sent back to the sender. He

contends he did not receive his property until after he transferred from Pelican Bay State Prison to

Corcoran State Prison, five (5) months later. 

Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to state a cognizable claim against the named

defendants. Plaintiff does not allege which of his constitutional rights he believes defendants

violated. To the extent that plaintiff is alleging that the denial of his legal property violated his First

Amendment right to access to the courts, plaintiff is advised that a prisoner alleging a violation of his

right of access to the courts must demonstrate that he has suffered “actual injury.” Lewis v. Casey,

518 U.S. 343, 349-50 (1996). The right to access the courts is limited to direct criminal appeals,

habeas corpus proceedings, and civil rights actions challenging conditions of confinement. Id. at

354-55. “An inmate cannot establish relevant actual injury simply by establishing that his prison’s

law library or legal assistance program is sub-par in some theoretical sense.” Id. at 351. Rather, the

inmate “must go one step further and demonstrate that the library or legal assistance program

hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim.” Id. The actual-injury requirement mandates that an

inmate “demonstrate that a nonfrivolous legal claim had been frustrated or was being impeded.” Id.

at 353. In Lewis v. Casey, the Supreme Court defined prisoners’ right of access to the courts as

simply the “right to bring to court a grievance.” Id. at 354. The Court specifically rejected the

notion that the state must enable a prisoner to “litigate effectively once in court.” Id. (quoting and

disclaiming language contained in Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 825-26 (1977)); see also Cornett

v. Donovan, 51 F.3d 894, 898 (9 Cir. 1995) (determining that prisoners’ right of access to the courts

th

Case 1:05-cv-00818-AWI-DLB Document 14 Filed 03/31/06 Page 2 of 5
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

is limited to the pleading stage of a civil rights action or petition for writ of habeas corpus). Here,

plaintiff alleges that he was denied access to his legal property but he does not allege any “actual

injury.” Thus, plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief under section 1983.

To the extent plaintiff alleges that defendant Rodman improperly denied his appeal, these

allegations also fail to state a cognizable claim under section 1983. “[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)); 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); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639,

640 (9th Cir. 1988); Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001) (existence of grievance

procedure confers no liberty interest on prisoner). “Hence, it does not give rise to a protected liberty

interest requiring the procedural protections envisioned by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Azeez, 568

F. Supp. at 10. Thus, the failure to process a grievance does not state a constitutional violation, and a

prison official’s involvement and actions in reviewing prisoner’s administrative appeal cannot serve

as the basis for liability under a section 1983 action. Buckley, 997 F.2d at 495. 

Finally, plaintiff fails to allege any facts with regard to Warden McGrath. The Civil Rights

Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to

be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of

any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . .

shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or

other proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between the

actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See Monell

v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). The

Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right,

within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s

affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the

deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). In

Case 1:05-cv-00818-AWI-DLB Document 14 Filed 03/31/06 Page 3 of 5
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 4

order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, plaintiff must link each named defendant with

some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of plaintiff’s federal rights. Because

plaintiff has failed to link Warden McGrath with some affirmative act or omission, plaintiff fails to

state a claim against him. Further, plaintiff is advised that supervisory personnel, such as Warden

McGrath, are generally not liable under section 1983 for the actions of their employees under a

theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant holds a supervisorial position,

the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. 

See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th

Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). To show a prima facie case of supervisory liability,

plaintiff must allege facts indicating that supervisory defendants either: personally participated in the

alleged deprivation of constitutional rights; knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them;

or promulgated or implemented a policy "so deficient that the policy itself is a repudiation of

constitutional rights" and is "the moving force of the constitutional violation." Hansen v. Black, 885

F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 

In summary, the Court finds it necessary to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The Court

will grant plaintiff an opportunity to amend to cure the deficiencies of this 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

Case 1:05-cv-00818-AWI-DLB Document 14 Filed 03/31/06 Page 4 of 5
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 5

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. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed; 

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

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: March 30, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00818-AWI-DLB Document 14 Filed 03/31/06 Page 5 of 5