Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01396/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01396-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

DAVID SCOTT HARRISON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KAREN HILLIARD, et. al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 15-1396 NJV (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Dkt. No. 8

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §

1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The court dismissed the

original complaint with leave to amend and plaintiff has filed an amended complaint. (Doc.

10.)

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). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and

dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary;

the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the

Case 3:15-cv-01396-CRB Document 12 Filed 02/17/16 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations

omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual

allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment] to relief'

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief

above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)

(citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has recently explained

the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the

framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are

well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine

whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,

679 (2009). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was

violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff argues that a book sent to him in the mail was lost or stolen and prison

officials are censoring his mail and delivering it late.

Neither the negligent nor intentional deprivation of property states a due process

claim under § 1983 if the deprivation was random and unauthorized. See Parratt v. Taylor,

451 U.S. 527, 535-44 (1981) (state employee negligently lost prisoner's hobby kit),

overruled in part on other grounds, Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-31 (1986);

Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (intentional destruction of inmate's property). 

The availability of an adequate state post-deprivation remedy, e.g., a state tort action,

precludes relief because it provides sufficient procedural due process. See Zinermon v.

Case 3:15-cv-01396-CRB Document 12 Filed 02/17/16 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 128 (1990) (where state cannot foresee, and therefore provide

meaningful hearing prior to, deprivation statutory provision for post-deprivation hearing or

common law tort remedy for erroneous deprivation satisfies due process); King v.

Massarweh, 782 F.2d 825, 826 (9th Cir. 1986) (same). California law provides such an

adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir.

1994) (citing Cal. Gov't Code §§ 810-895).

Prisoners enjoy a First Amendment right to send and receive mail. See Witherow v.

Paff, 52 F.3d 264, 265 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407

(1989)). A prison, however, may adopt regulations or practices which impinge on a

prisoner's First Amendment rights as long as the regulations are "reasonably related to

legitimate penological interests." See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). The Turner

standard applies to regulations and practices concerning all correspondence between

prisoners and to regulations concerning incoming mail received by prisoners from

non-prisoners. See Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 413. The inspection for contraband of

non-legal mail does not violate a prisoner's constitutional rights. See Witherow, 52 F.3d at

265-66 (upholding inspection of outgoing mail).

Prison officials have a responsibility to forward mail to inmates promptly. See Bryan

v. Werner, 516 F.2d 233, 238 (3d Cir. 1975). Allegations that mail delivery was delayed for

an inordinate amount of time are sufficient to state a claim for violation of the First

Amendment. See Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1432 (7th Cir. 1996). Any practice

or regulation that unduly delays an inmate's incoming mail must be reasonably related to

legitimate penological interests. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. at 89. But a temporary

delay or isolated incident of delay does not violate a prisoner's First Amendment rights. 

See Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957, 961 (9th Cir. 1999) (policy of diverting publications

through property room reasonably related to prison's interest in inspecting mail for

contraband).

Plaintiff first argues that he did not receive a book he ordered, “Lockdown America”. 

Case 3:15-cv-01396-CRB Document 12 Filed 02/17/16 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Defendants initially informed plaintiff that he could not have this book and it would have to

be returned or destroyed and he had 15 days to decide. Plaintiff appealed and staff ruled

they had made an error and plaintiff could have the book, but it had already been returned. 

Plaintiff argues that defendants did not wait the 15 days and the book was returned or

destroyed before that time period ended. He argues that defendants improperly stole or

destroyed it. However, plaintiff is not entitled to relief for his claim that the property was

negligently or intentionally destroyed or stolen. See Parratt. This claim is dismissed with

leave to amend. 

Plaintiff also argues that defendants censored his mail, but he provides no specific

details regarding the alleged censorship. This claim is also dismissed with leave to amend. 

Plaintiff next argues that his mail has been delivered late and he attaches a chart that sets

for the postmark when the materials were mailed and when he received it, which was

usually twenty-five days later. Though, it is not clear when mail actually arrived at the

prison. Liberally construed, this is sufficient to state a claim for relief.

CONCLUSION

1. The amended complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with

the standards set forth above. The amended complaint must be filed within twenty-eight

(28) days of the date this order is filed and must include the caption and civil case number

used in this order and the words SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. 

Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must

include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the original complaint by

reference. Failure to amend within the designated time will result in the dismissal of all

claims except for the allegations that plaintiff’s mail was delivered late.

2. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed

“Notice of Change of Address,” and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion. 

Case 3:15-cv-01396-CRB Document 12 Filed 02/17/16 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 17, 2016. 

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01396-CRB Document 12 Filed 02/17/16 Page 5 of 5