Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02776/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02776-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM ODESSA BROWN II,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SALINAS VALLEY STATE PRISON, ET

AL.,

Defendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-2776 CW (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AND

DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS

STATUS

(Docket nos. 2, 3)

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff William Odessa Brown II is a prisoner of the State of

California who is incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison

(SVSP). He has filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 and seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Venue is

proper in this Court because the injuries complained of occurred in

Monterey County, which is located within the Northern District of

California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391; 28 U.S.C. § 84.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any

case in which a prisoner seeks 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 that 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. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).

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 

Case 4:05-cv-02776-CW Document 4 Filed 01/25/06 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

(2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting

under the color of State law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48

(1988). "'[A] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to

state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can

prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle

him to relief.'" Terracom v. Valley National Bank, 49 F.3d 555, 558

(9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46

(1957)). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri

v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff alleges that during the months of July through

December, 2004, SVSP mail room staff opened seven pieces of his

legal mail outside of his presence. Plaintiff pursued the matter

through all three formal levels of administrative review. At each

level it was determined that mail room staff erroneously opened the

legal mail. The error was acknowledged and Plaintiff was told that

additional training was provided to staff on opening legal mail. 

Because there was no theft or destruction of property, the

institution found no justification to award Plaintiff monetary

damages. 

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)). The

inspection for contraband of non-legal mail does not violate a

prisoner's constitutional rights. See id., 52 F.3d at 265-66

(upholding inspection of outgoing mail); Smith v. Boyd, 945 F.2d

1041, 1043 (8th Cir. 1991) (upholding inspection of incoming mail);

Gaines v. Lane, 790 F.2d 1299, 1304 (7th Cir. 1986) (upholding

inspection of outgoing and incoming mail). Prison officials also

Case 4:05-cv-02776-CW Document 4 Filed 01/25/06 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

3

may institute procedures for inspecting legal mail, for example,

mail sent between attorneys and prisoners, see Wolff v. McDonnell,

418 U.S. 539, 576-77 (1974) (incoming mail from attorneys), and mail

sent from prisoners to the courts, see Royse v. Superior Court, 779

F.2d 573, 574-75 (9th Cir. 1986) (outgoing mail to court). But the

opening and inspecting of legal mail outside the presence of the

prisoner may have an impermissible chilling effect on the

constitutional right to petition the government. See O'Keefe v. Van

Boening, 82 F.3d 322, 325 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Laird v. Tatum,

408 U.S. 1, 11 (1972)). 

Isolated incidents of mail interference without any evidence of

improper motive or resulting interference with the right to counsel

or access to the courts do not give rise to a constitutional

violation. See Smith v. Maschner, 899 F.2d 940, 944 (10th Cir.

1990); Morgan v. Montanye, 516 F.2d 1367, 1370-71 (2d Cir. 1975) (no

claim where letter from prisoner's attorney opened out of prisoner's

presence in single instance), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 973 (1976);

Bach v. Illinois, 504 F.2d 1100, 1102 (7th Cir.) (isolated incident

of mail mishandling insufficient to state a claim under § 1983),

cert. denied, 418 U.S. 910 (1974); Lingo v. Boone, 402 F. Supp. 768,

773 (N.D. Cal. 1975) (an isolated incident of mail censorship or

interference due to prison officials' "honest error" does not

justify relief under § 1983).

According to Plaintiff's allegations and the exhibits attached

to his complaint, it is not contested that SVSP mail room staff did

in fact open his legal mail outside of his presence. It also is not

contested, however, that this was the result of anything more than

mail room staff negligence and inadequate training. Plaintiff

complains that SVSP prison officials did not comply with State

Case 4:05-cv-02776-CW Document 4 Filed 01/25/06 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

regulations for opening legal mail. This alone, however, does not

amount to a constitutional violation. According to Plaintiff's

allegations, prison mail room staff made an honest error which did

not cause actual injury to him in any court action he was litigating

at the time. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Because

amendment would be futile, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 

The action is DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to

amend. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. (Docket nos.

2, 3.)

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 1/25/06

 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-02776-CW Document 4 Filed 01/25/06 Page 4 of 4