Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01608/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01608-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH ALLEN NEIGHBORS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1608 LKK DAD P

vs.

RHONDA HOLTORF, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge in

accordance with Local Rule 72-302 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 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. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (2).

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28

Case 2:06-cv-01608-LKK -DAD Document 7 Filed 03/22/07 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

 15 CCR § 3084.5(e) provides: 1

Appeal review. Formal appeals shall not be reviewed by a staff

person who participated in the event or decision being appealed, or

who is of lower administrative rank than any participating staff, or

who participated in review of a lower level appeal refiled at a

higher level.

2

(9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

A claim should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted only if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the

claim that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); 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. See Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees,

425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976). The court must also construe the pleading in the light most favorable

to the plaintiff and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S.

411, 421 (1969).

Here, plaintiff contends that his rights under the First and Fourteenth

Amendments, the California Code of Regulations, and the California Constitution were violated

when defendants reviewed and denied his inmate appeals. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that he

submitted an inmate grievance concerning defendant Holtorf, the mailroom supervisor at Mule

Creek State Prison (MCSP) who allegedly ordered a search of plaintiff’s cell. According to

plaintiff, in violation of Title 15, section 3084.5(e) of the California Code of Regulations ,

1

defendant Holtorf conducted the informal level of review and was involved at the first-level of

review. Plaintiff informed defendant Holtorf that the regulations prohibited defendant from

Case 2:06-cv-01608-LKK -DAD Document 7 Filed 03/22/07 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

3

being a reviewer and a respondent to the 602 grievance. Defendant Holtorf told plaintiff that it

was not his place to instruct staff what they can and cannot do and that she would remain as the

reviewer if she wished to do so. On January 5, 2006, the response to the grievance at the first

level was authored by defendant Holtorf and co-signed by defendant Bunnell, the Associate

Warden at MCSP. The appeal was denied with the following summary:

You were interviewed December 16, 2005, regarding this appeal. 

Mailroom Operational Procedure MC4-54010 states that Indigent

inmates can request on an as needed basis up to 5 one-once [sic]

letters (5 indigent envelopes per week). MCSP has added an

additional large legal envelope and 10 pieces of paper for indigent

inmates to correspond with courts and attorneys. These envelopes

are to be used the week they are issued. The indigent envelopes are

non-transferable and are not to be accumulated. The issue

regarding indigent envelpes [sic] was addressed in a previous 602

dated November 15, 2005. The mailroom cannot substantiate your

allegation of a cell search. Please request copies from the

correctional staff who can substantiate your claim.

(Compl., Ex. A, at 4.) At the second and third levels of review, defendants Knoetzsch, Reyes,

Porter and Campbell also denied plaintiff’s appeals knowing that defendant Holtorf was involved

in the earlier review. Therefore, these defendants are named in this action because they were

“deliberately indifferent” about violating the regulations, the California Constitution and the First

and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. 

The court finds that plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable federal claim. 

“[I]nmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.”

Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640

(9th Cir. 1988)). This includes regulations concerning who may review inmate grievances. 

Thus, the court will recommend that plaintiff’s civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 be

dismissed.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a),

in any civil action of which the district courts have original

jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction

over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action

Case 2:06-cv-01608-LKK -DAD Document 7 Filed 03/22/07 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

 Should plaintiff decide to proceed in state court, he should not include a claim alleging 2

violation of the U.S. Constitution.

4

within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same

case or controversy under Article III of the United States

Constitution. 

However, the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim “if the

district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. §

1367(c)(3). As indicated above, the court will recommend that the claim over which it has

original jurisdiction be dismissed. Therefore, the court will also recommends that plaintiff’s

state law claims be dismissed without prejudice to their refiling in state court.

2

On July 20, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

The motion should be denied because this civil rights action fails to state a civil rights claim

upon which relief may be granted in this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983;

2. Plaintiff’s state law claims be dismissed without prejudice to their refiling in

state court; and

3. Plaintiff’s July 20, 2006 motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, 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

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01608-LKK -DAD Document 7 Filed 03/22/07 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

5

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: March 22, 2007.

DAD:4

neig1608.56

Case 2:06-cv-01608-LKK -DAD Document 7 Filed 03/22/07 Page 5 of 5