Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02609/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02609-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

TONY BLACKMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. M. MANTEL; et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-2609 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

INTRODUCTION

Tony Blackman, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action originally was filed in the Eastern District of

California and was later transferred to this district because this district was the proper venue for

Blackman's challenge to the conditions of confinement at Salinas Valley. The complaint is now

before the court for initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

DISCUSSION

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See

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. See id. at

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

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

Case 3:07-cv-02609-SI Document 4 Filed 09/05/07 Page 1 of 4
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

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

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

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

The complaint in this action attempts to allege several claims for denial of access to the

courts. As this court previously explained to Blackman, the mere denial of an inmate appeal

does not amount to a constitutional violation. See Order Of Dismissal With Leave To Amend

in Blackman v. Variz, C 06-7625 SI. As the court further explained, if Blackman wanted to

attempt to allege a claim for denial of access to the courts based on the interference with his

inmate appeals or submission of pauper materials to a court, he had to allege an actual injury:

[T]o establish a claim for any violation of the right of access to the courts, the prisoner

must show that there was an inadequacy in the prison's legal access program that caused

him an actual injury. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350-51 (1996). To prove an

actual injury, the prisoner must show that the inadequacy hindered him in presenting a

non-frivolous claim concerning his conviction or conditions of confinement. See id. at

355. Examples of impermissible hindrances include: a prisoner whose complaint was

dismissed for failure to satisfy some technical requirement which, because of deficiencies

in the prison's legal assistance facilities, he could not have known; and a prisoner who

had "suffered arguably actionable harm" that he wished to bring to the attention of the

court, but was so stymied by the inadequacies of the prison's services that he was unable

even to file a complaint. See id. at 351. Mere delay in filing papers would not be

enough, for example, if they were nevertheless timely filed or accepted and considered

by the court. See Hudson v. Robinson, 678 F.2d 462, 466 (3d Cir. 1982). 

Order Of Dismissal With Leave To Amend in Blackman v. Variz, C 06-7625 SI. 

The first claim in the complaint is that several defendants refused to respond to

Blackman's inmate appeal dated February 21, 2007 requesting in forma pauperis application

materials from the trust account office. The claim is shown to be meritless by the exhibits

attached to the complaint. Exhibit A is a "screening form" dated March 16, 2007, used by the

appeals coordinator to return the appeal with the comment: "You must follow procedure - OP

# 2, in order to file in forma pauperis. You have not complied with past instructions to follow

OP # 2." Complaint, Exh. A. The exhibits show that Blackman's failure to obtain the pauper

forms was caused by his refusal to follow standard operating policy rather than misbehavior by

the prison officials. Blackman insisted on using the inmate appeal system to obtain the materials

despite the prison officials' direction to him that he had to follow OP # 2. If the prison policy

Case 3:07-cv-02609-SI Document 4 Filed 09/05/07 Page 2 of 4
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

1

The problem of Blackman refusing to follow OP # 2 regarding obtaining the forms from the

trust account office is not new to the court. The problem was discussed in the Order Of Dismissal in

Blackman v. Ponder, C 07-330 SI. 

3

is that a trust account statement or certificate of funds cannot be requested through the inmate

appeals system and must be requested by following Operational Procedure # 2, the prisoner must

attempt to obtain the materials by following Operational Procedure # 2. Blackman's failure to

follow OP # 2 means that any injury he suffered in terms of the dismissal of any case in which

he did not file his pauper materials was not caused by defendants' misconduct.1

 Cf. Resnick v.

Adams, 348 F.3d 763, 770 (9th Cir. 2003) (prison had a legitimate governmental interest in the

orderly administration of a program that allowed prisons to accommodate the needs of thousands

of prisoners and that "[a]llowing inmates to make requests outside this system by letters sent to

various prison officials would frustrate the orderly administration" of the program). The claim

is dismissed.

 The second claim in the complaint is that defendant Jurado denied Blackman law library

access and services so that he could receive copying service to file "another state petition on

plaintiff false imprisonment due to North Kern Co. Deputy District Attorney Office Mr. Chris

White 'depriving' plaintiff of his liberty to (appear) in court for a court hearing on criminal

charge filed against plaintiff for battery on an inmate with a 'deadly weapon' to try to (cover up)

assault and battery on plaintiff on 5-26-04." Complaint, p. 3 (grammar and punctuation errors

in source). An exhibit to the complaint shows that this claim has no merit. Exhibit B states that

Kern County Deputy District Attorney Chris White declined to prosecute Blackman for the

crime. A challenge to a criminal charge that the prosecutor declined to prosecute would have

been frivolous, as would have a claim that Blackman had any right to appear at a hearing on a

charge that the prosecutor had declined to prosecute. Blackman thus did not allege the necessary

actual injury to state a claim for denial of access to the courts based on the denial of law library

access and services.

The third claim is that prison officials are "disobeying plaintiff Los Angeles Co. Superior

Court order to appeal." Complaint, p. 4 (errors in source). Once again, an exhibit to the

Case 3:07-cv-02609-SI Document 4 Filed 09/05/07 Page 3 of 4
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

complaint shows that this claim has no merit. Exhibit E is a minute order printout of a probation

and sentencing hearing on January 20, 2004 for Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No.

BA250138 in which Blackman was sentenced to a total of 60 years to life. The portion

highlighted by Blackman states: "Court orders and findings: -The court advises the defendant

of appeal rights." Complaint, Exh. E. The exhibit simply does not support Blackman's

characterization of it as an order that he had to appeal. Rather, the exhibit reflects the routine

advisement to a criminal defendant that he had a right to appeal if he wanted to do so.

Defendants are not "disobeying" a court order, even if one ignores the obvious untimeliness

problem for an appeal sought to be filed three years after the 2004 sentencing. Blackman's

claim that defendants are disobeying that "order" is frivolous. 

The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Leave to amend

will not be granted because it would be futile. The court has explained in previous actions that

an actual injury must be alleged to state a claim for denial of access to the courts. Blackman has

been unable to allege one. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this action is dismissed without leave to amend because the

complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 5, 2007 ______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02609-SI Document 4 Filed 09/05/07 Page 4 of 4