Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00985/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00985-0/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEON M. SORIANO,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. NARANJO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00985-YNP GSA (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH

LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. 1)

Screening Order

I. 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 has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant o

28 U.S. S. § 636(c)(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). 

“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). 

“Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited

1

Case 1:09-cv-00985-MJS Document 6 Filed 02/19/10 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

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S.

506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 

“Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the

grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. However, “the liberal pleading

standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330

n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements

of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257

(9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

II. Plaintiff’s Claims

The events at issue in this action occurred at the California Substance Abuse Treatment

Facility (“CSATF”) in Corcoran, where Plaintiff is currently housed. Plaintiff names the following

individual defendants: Correctional Officer (C/O) L. Naranjo; Sergeant K.A. Dicks; Correctional

Counselor (CCI) Jones; CCI Cano; CCI Hicinbotham; Librarian Neri; S. Wortman, Vice Principal

of Education. Plaintiff sets forth claims of retaliation, interference with the appeals process and

access to the courts.

A. Retaliation

Plaintiff alleges that on July 18, 2008, Defendant Naranjo deprived Plaintiff of his evening

meal in retaliation for Plaintiff’s filing of an inmate grievance, “concerning staff practices in 4B3R

building.” Naranjo also referred to Plaintiff using an ethnic slur. Defendant Dicks was aware of

Naranjo’s conduct, and “has supported it.” Defendants Dick and Naranjo allegedly provided

Plaintiff with a meal that violated his Rastafarian religious beliefs.

In the prison context, allegations of retaliation against a prisoner’s First Amendment rights

to speech or to petition the government may support a section 1983 claim. Rizzo v. Dawson, 778

F.2d 527, 532 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Valandingham v. Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135 (9th Cir. 1989);

Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir. 1995). “[A] viable claim of First Amendment

retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action

against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled

2

Case 1:09-cv-00985-MJS Document 6 Filed 02/19/10 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

the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance

a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005). An

allegation of retaliation against a prisoner’s First Amendment right to file a prison grievance is

sufficient to support a claim under section 1983. Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1288 (9th Cir. 2003).

Although Plaintiff does not specifically allege a chilling effect, the Ninth Circuit has

suggested that alleging harm is sufficient “since harm that is more than minimal will almost always

have a chilling effect.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 568 n.11 (9th Cir. 2005). Here,

however, Plaintiff alleges, at most, minimal harm. Plaintiff was deprived of a single evening meal,

and deprived of a meal that comported with his religious beliefs. Plaintiff has not alleged facts

indicating that he was authorized to receive a particular religious diet, nor has he alleged facts

indicating that he was deprived of such a diet to the extent that he suffered more than minimal harm.

B. Inmate Grievance

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Jones and Hicinbotom have “abridge as obstructed

petitioners right to seek redress as exhaustion administrative remedies, on several inmate appeals.” 

“[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). “Hence,

it does not give rise to a protected liberty interest requiring the procedural protections envisioned by

the Fourteenth Amendment.” Azeez v. DeRobertis, 568 F. Supp. at 10; Spencer v. Moore, 638 F.

Supp. 315, 316 (E.D. Mo. 1986).

C. Access to Courts

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Neri and Wortman have denied him access to the courts by

failing to provide Plaintiff with the “required number of copies required by the court.” Plaintiff does

not refer to what he is filing, and in what court.

Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S.

3

Case 1:09-cv-00985-MJS Document 6 Filed 02/19/10 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

343, 346 (1996); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977); Bradley v. Hall, 64 F.3d 1276, 1279

(9th Cir. 1995) (discussing the right in the context of prison grievance procedures); Vandelft v.

Moses, 31 F.3d 794, 796 (9th Cir. 1994); Ching v. Lewis, 895 F.2d 608, 609 (9th Cir. 1989) (per

curiam). To establish a violation of the right of access to the courts, a prisoner must establish that

he or she has suffered an actual injury, a jurisdictional requirement that flows from the standing

doctrine and may not be waived. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 349. An “actual injury” is “‘actual

prejudice with respect to contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing

deadline or to present a claim.’” Id. at 348. Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that satisfy the actual

injury standard as defined above.

III. Conclusion and Order

The Court has screened Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it does not state any claims upon

which relief may be granted under section 1983. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the

opportunityto file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified bythe Court in this order. 

Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff is cautioned that he may not

change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George,

507 F.3d at 607 (no “buckshot” complaints).

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what each

named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal rights,

Hydrick, 500 F.3d at 987-88. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be

[sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007) (citations omitted). 

 Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint,

Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567

(9th Cir. 1987), and must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded

pleading,” Local Rule 220. Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an original

complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing

to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at

1474.

4

Case 1:09-cv-00985-MJS Document 6 Filed 02/19/10 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

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

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim;

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

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

amended complaint; 

4. Plaintiff may not add any new, unrelated claims to this action via his amended

complaint and any attempt to do so will result in an order striking the amended

complaint; and 

5. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, the Court will recommend that this

action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 18, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

Case 1:09-cv-00985-MJS Document 6 Filed 02/19/10 Page 5 of 5