Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04557/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04557-0/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

Order of Dismissal; Denying Plaintiff’s Motions as Moot

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Jackson557dis 

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRED LEON JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

S. GOMEZ, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-4557 JF (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL;

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONS AS MOOT

(Docket Nos. 2, 5)

Plaintiff, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison proceeding pro se, filed a civil

rights complaint alleging that Defendants conspired together and failed to process his

administrative appeal regarding his claim for damages to his AM/FM CD player during a

cell search. Plaintiff has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion for a

temporary restraining order. The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s claims are not

cognizable under § 1983 and will DISMISS the complaint. Based upon the dismissal, the

Court will DENY Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and motion for a

temporary restraining order (docket nos. 2, 5) as moot. 

\\\

\\\

**Original filed 9/25/06**

Case 5:05-cv-04557-JF Document 6 Filed 09/25/06 Page 1 of 7
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

Order of Dismissal; Denying Plaintiff’s Motions as Moot

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Jackson557dis 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff complains that Salinas Valley State Prison officials conspired and failed

to process his prison administrative appeal concerning his claim for damage to his

AM/FM CD player during a cell search. Plaintiff alleges that his access to the courts has

been hindered due to Defendants’ failure to process his administrative appeal. He names

the following Defendants in his complaint: S. Gomez, Correctional Counselor at Salinas

Valley State Prison; N. Grannis, Chief of Inmate Appeals, California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation; and T. Variz, Correctional Counselor at Salinas Valley

State Prison. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive monetary damages, injunctive

relief and a declaratory judgment. 

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 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. 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).

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

acting under the color of state law committed a violation of a right secured by the

Constitution or laws of the United States. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). To

state a claim a plaintiff must show a specific constitutional or federal guarantee

safeguarding the interests that have been invaded. See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 697

(1976). 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)). 

Case 5:05-cv-04557-JF Document 6 Filed 09/25/06 Page 2 of 7
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

Order of Dismissal; Denying Plaintiff’s Motions as Moot

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Jackson557dis 

B. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants conspired and failed to process his administrative

appeal concerning damage to his personal property, an AM/FM CD player, during a cell

search. Plaintiff maintains that he was injured by Defendants’ actions because he cannot

file a government tort claim and that his access to the courts was hindered by the

screening out of his inmate administrative appeal. 

 Although Plaintiff is not required to plead his evidence “or specific factual details

not ascertainable in advance of discovery,” Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1340

(9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1054 (1987), a pleading will not be sufficient to

state a claim under 1983 if the allegations are mere conclusions. See Kennedy v. H & M

Landing, Inc., 529 F.2d 987, 989 (9th Cir. 1976); Fisher v. Flynn, 598 F. 2d 663, 665 (1st

Cir. 1979). A complaint that fails to state the specific acts of the defendant which

violated the plaintiff’s rights fails to meet the requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. See Hutchinson v. United States, 677 F.2d 1322, 1328 n.5 (9th

Cir. 1982). 

Here, Plaintiff makes the conclusory allegation that the Defendants actions were

based upon a conspiracy to prevent Plaintiff from filing an administrative appeal. 

However, he has presented no facts from which such a conclusion might be drawn. The

Court concludes that Plaintiff’s conspiracy claim concerning Defendants’ failure to

process his administrative appeals for damage to his personal property is not cognizable

under § 1983. “‘A mere allegation of conspiracy without factual specificity is

insufficient.’” Johnson v. California, 207 F.3d 650, 655 (9th Cir.2000) (quoting

Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 626 (9th Cir. 1988)) (claims

under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)). Here, Plaintiff makes nothing more than a bare allegation of

a conspiracy and thus fails to state a claim. 

 Even assuming that Plaintiff could allege specific facts to establish a conspiracy

among the Defendants, there is no constitutional right to a prison administrative appeal or

grievance system. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann v.

Case 5:05-cv-04557-JF Document 6 Filed 09/25/06 Page 3 of 7
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

 See Cal. Code of Regs. tit. 15 § 1073 (applicable to county jails), and § 3084, et seq.

(applicable to state prisons).

Order of Dismissal; Denying Plaintiff’s Motions as Moot

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Jackson557dis 

Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422,

1430 (7th Cir. 1996); Garfield v. Davis, 566 F. Supp. 1069, 1074 (E.D. Pa. 1983); accord

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 565 (1974) (accepting Nebraska system wherein no

provision made for administrative review of disciplinary decisions). 

California Code of Regulations, title 15 sections 1073 and 3084 grant prisoners in

the county jails and state prisons a purely procedural right: the right to have a prison

appeal.1

 The regulations simply require the establishment of a procedural structure for

reviewing prisoner complaints and set forth no substantive standards; instead, they

provide for flexible appeal time limits, see Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.6, and, at most,

that “no reprisal shall be taken against an inmate or parolee for filing an appeal,” id. §

3084.1(d). A provision that merely provides procedural requirements, even if mandatory,

cannot form the basis of a constitutionally cognizable liberty interest. See Smith v.

Noonan, 992 F.2d 987, 989 (9th Cir. 1993); see also Antonelli, 81 F.3d at 1430 (prison 

grievance procedure is procedural right that does not give rise to protected liberty interest

requiring procedural protections of Due Process Clause); Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d

494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993) (same); Azeez v. DeRobertis, 568 F. Supp. 8, 10 (N.D. Ill. 1982)

(same). A prison official’s failure to process grievances, without more, accordingly is not

actionable under § 1983. See Buckley, 997 F.2d at 495; see also Ramirez, 334 F.3d at

860 (holding that prisoner’s claimed loss of a liberty interest in the processing of his

appeals does not violate due process because prisoners lack a separate constitutional

entitlement to a specific prison grievance system).

Plaintiff also claims that his access to the courts has been hindered due to

Defendants’ failure to process his administrative appeal. The right of meaningful access

to the courts extends to established prison grievance procedures. See Bradley v. Hall, 64

F.3d 1276, 1279 (9th Cir. 1995); accord Hines v. Gomez, 853 F. Supp. 329, 331-32 (N.D.

Cal. 1994). This right is subsumed under the First Amendment right to petition the

Case 5:05-cv-04557-JF Document 6 Filed 09/25/06 Page 4 of 7
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 The Lewis decision was ambiguous as to whether the state must provide the tools necessary

for inmates to file state law claims in federal or state court concerning their conditions of

confinement. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 354-60.

 3 For example, a state need not accommodate prisoners’ desires to pursue tort claims for slipand-falls or shareholder derivative suits. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 355; see also Simmons v.

Sacramento County Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156, 1159-60 (9th Cir. 2003) (state official’s

refusal to transport prisoner to court for a state civil trial that is unrelated to the cause or

conditions of the detention does not violate prisoner’s constitutional right of access to the

courts).

Order of Dismissal; Denying Plaintiff’s Motions as Moot

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Jackson557dis 

government for redress of grievances, see id. at 333, and protects both the filing, see id.,

and content, see Bradley, 64 F.3d at 1279, of prison grievances. Regulations which

punish an inmate for using “hostile, sexual, abusive or threatening” language in a written

grievance, for example, are not reasonably related to penological interests and therefore

violate the First Amendment. See id. at 1279-82. 

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

518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). The right of

access to the court is limited to the initiation of a court action. The state is not required to

enable the prisoner to discover grievances or to litigate effectively once in court. See

Lewis, 518 U.S. at 354. The right of access to the courts requires the state to provide the

prisoners with the capabilities to attack their sentences directly or collaterally and to file 

§ 1983 claims challenging the conditions of their confinement. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at

355.2

 “Impairment of any other litigating capacity is simply one of the incidental (and

perfectly constitutional) consequences of conviction and incarceration.” Id.3

 Although

there certainly is a right to petition the government for redress of grievances (a First

Amendment right), there is no right to a response or any particular action. See Flick v.

Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991) (“prisoner’s right to petition the government for

redress ... is not compromised by the prison’s refusal to entertain his grievance.”). 

Here, Plaintiff’s right to access the courts does not include the initiation of a court

action concerning the underlying claim at issue here - a tort claim for damage to personal

property, rather than a challenge to the conditions of his confinement or his criminal

Case 5:05-cv-04557-JF Document 6 Filed 09/25/06 Page 5 of 7
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

Order of Dismissal; Denying Plaintiff’s Motions as Moot

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Jackson557dis 

conviction. Additionally, Plaintiff has no right to a response or a particular action from

the prison grievance process itself. See Flick, 932 F.2d at 729 . 

Although the Court generally grants leave to amend after an initial screening of a

complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915A, the Court concludes that here, leave would serve no

purpose as a viable civil rights claim cannot be made concerning Plaintiff’s allegations

concerning the failure to process his administrative appeal. Accordingly, the instant

complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim under § 1983. Plaintiff’s

motions (docket nos. 2, 5) are DENIED as moot. 

CONCLUSION

The instant civil rights complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable

claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Based upon the dismissal, Plaintiff’s motion to

proceed in forma pauperis and motion for a temporary restraining order (docket nos. 2, 5)

are DENIED as moot. No filing fee is due. The Clerk shall terminate all pending

motions and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

9/21/06 /s/jeremy fogel

Case 5:05-cv-04557-JF Document 6 Filed 09/25/06 Page 6 of 7
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

Order of Dismissal; Denying Plaintiff’s Motions as Moot

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Jackson557dis 

A copy of this order has been mailed to:

Fred Leon Jackson, Jr.

K-15359/ B-4 142-L

Salinas Valley State Prison

P.O. Box 1050

Soledad, CA 93960-1050

Case 5:05-cv-04557-JF Document 6 Filed 09/25/06 Page 7 of 7