Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01664/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01664-9/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

- 1 - 06CV1664 WQH (WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND H. DENTON,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06CV1664 WQH (WMc)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

vs. RECOMMENDATION

J. BOWMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William

McCurine, Jr., recommending that the Court grant in part, and deny in part, Defendants’ motion to

dismiss. (Doc. # 33). 

BACKGROUND

On August 17, 2006, Plaintiff Raymond H. Denton, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed

the original Complaint in this matter. (Doc # 1). On September 28, 2006, this Court issued an order

dismissing the case without prejudice for failure to state a claim. (Doc. # 3). 

On October 13, 2006, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. # 4). On December

5, 2006, this Court issued an order dismissing the First Amended Complaint without prejudice for

failure to state a claim. (Doc. # 5). 

On February 9, 2007, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983, asserting a violation of his liberty interest pursuant to 15 C.C.R. § 3147(b), denial of

Case 3:06-cv-01664-WQH-WMC Document 38 Filed 03/19/08 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

- 2 - 06CV1664 WQH (WMc)

his right to access the courts, and retaliation against Defendant prison officials. (Doc. # 9). The SAC

alleges that Defendants deprived Plaintiff of a constitutionally protected liberty interest by failing to

notify him in writing that his outgoing confidential mail was being repeatedly intercepted, delayed,

and not promptly mailed out of the prison in accordance with 15 C.C.R. § 3147(b). SAC at ¶¶ 8, 13.

In addition, the SAC alleges that Defendants intercepted and delayed Plaintiff’s mail in retaliation for

Plaintiff’s use of the inmate appeals process and an anticipated lawsuit. SAC at ¶ 9. 

On August 20, 2007, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the SAC, strike Plaintiff’s claim for

punitive damages, and designate a strike against Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). (Docs. # 21,

22). On January 15, 2008, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. (Doc. # 32). 

On January 25, 2008, Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr. issued a Report and

Recommendation recommending that this Court grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss, deny as moot

Defendants’ motion to strike the claim for punitive damages, and deny Defendants’ motion to

designate Plaintiff’s SAC a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Doc. # 33). The Report and

Recommendation concluded that Defendants’ alleged failure to notify Plaintiff of the regular

interception, delay, and failure to process his mail as required by 15 C.C.R. § 3147(b), did not

constitute a violation of a constitutionally protected liberty interest because Plaintiff failed to

demonstrate that the claimed liberty interest at issue pertained to a “freedom of restraint” that

“imposes atypical and significant hardships . . . in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.”

Report and Recommendation (R & R) at 5-6. The Report and Recommendation concluded that

Plaintiff failed to state a claim for a violation of his constitutional rights because limited incidents of

improper handling of inmate mail is not actionable as a constitutional violation. R & R at 6-7. The

Report and Recommendation concluded that Plaintiff failed to state a claim for violations of his right

to access the courts because Plaintiff failed to allege any actual injury. R & R at 7-8. The Report and

Recommendation concluded that Plaintiff failed to state a claim for retaliation because Plaintiff failed

to allege how the delay in sending out Plaintiff’s mail is related to or caused by Plaintiff’s exercise

of a constitutional right. R & R at 9-10. 

On March 3, 2008, Plaintiff filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. # 37).

The Objections consisted of a photocopy of the Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to dismiss filed

Case 3:06-cv-01664-WQH-WMC Document 38 Filed 03/19/08 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

- 3 - 06CV1664 WQH (WMc)

on January 15, 2008.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The duties of a District Court in connection with a Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). Where the parties object to a Report and Recommendation, “[a] judge of the district

court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [Report and Recommendation] to

which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-150 (1985).

When no objections are filed, the District Court need not review de novo the Report and

Recommendation. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A general objection to a report and

recommendation has the “same effect as would a failure to object” because “[t]he district court's

attention is not focused on any specific issues for review, thereby making the initial reference to the

magistrate useless.” Gutierrez v. Flannican, No. CV-05-2981-PHX-DGC (DKD), 2006 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 71865, at *5 (D. Ariz. Sept.29, 2006) (citing Howard v. Sec. of Health and Human Servs., 932

F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991)). A District Court may always, “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or

in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

Wilkins v. Ramirez, 435 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1088 (S.D. Cal. 2006); Or. Natural Desert Ass’n v.

Rasmussen, 451 F. Supp. 2d. 1202, 1205 (D. Or. 2006). 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff has filed a document entitiled “Objections to the Report and Recommendation.”

(Doc. # 37). The document is a photocopy of the Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion to

dismiss. (Docs. # 32, 37). 

Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 636 in consideration of judicial economy, and the statute allows

a magistrate judge to assist a district judge in dealing with a court’s caseload. See Thomas, 474 U.S.

at 152. The efficiency gained through the use of magistrate judges “would be lost if parties were

permitted to invoke the de novo review of the district court merely by interposing non-specific

objections to the magistrate's R&R.” Gutierrez v. Flannican, No. CV-05-2981-PHX-DGC (DKD),

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71865, at *5 (D. Ariz. Sept.29, 2006) (citing Howard v. Sec. of Health and

Case 3:06-cv-01664-WQH-WMC Document 38 Filed 03/19/08 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

- 4 - 06CV1664 WQH (WMc)

Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991)). Plaintiff has not objected specifically to any

portion of the Report and Recommendation. See Objections (Doc. # 32). Beyond the caption of the

pleading entitled “Objections to Report and Recommendation,” Plaintiff’s objection is a photocopy

of his handwritten opposition to the motion to dismiss, which the Report and Recommendation has

already considered. Objections (Doc. # 32). Reproducing a document previously filed in place of

specific objections to the Report and Recommendation undermines the purpose of the magistrate

judge, and the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s filing of March 3, 2008 (Doc. # 32), does not qualify

as an objection to the Report and Recommendation. Eldridge v. Bowen, 685 F. Supp. 285 (D. Me.

1988). 

Despite Plaintiff’s failure to file proper objections, the Court has reviewed the Report and

Recommendation de novo. Plaintiff is correct in noting that an inmate has a “Fourteenth Amendment

due-process liberty interest in receiving notice that his incoming mail was being withheld by prison

authorities.” Objections (Doc. # 32 at 4-5) (quoting Frost v. Symington, 197 F.3d 348, 353 (9th Cir.

1999)). However, the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that a brief delay in the processing of an

inmate’s outgoing mail without notice to the inmate is not a violation of this fourteenth amendment

right. See Sorrels v. McKee, 290 F.3d 965, 972 (2002); Frost, 197 F.3d at 353. In addition, the SAC

does not allege facts which establish that the prison has a policy of withholding notice from an inmate

whose mail has been delayed, and as noted by Defendants, negligence does not support a claim

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Sorrels, 290 F.3d at 972. The Court finds that the Report and

Recommendation correctly concluded that Plaintiff has failed to allege a violation of a liberty interest

related to the “freedom of restraint” that “imposes atypical and significant hardships . . . in relation

to the ordinary incidents of prison life,” and Plaintiff’s allegations of limited incidents of mishandling

of mail do not give rise to a constitutional violation. R & R at 5-7; see Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S.

472, 481-82 (1995); see Stevenson v. Koskey, 877 F.2d 1435, 1441 (9th Cir. 1989). The Court further

concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Plaintiff has failed to allege actual injury

in support of his claim for denial of access to the courts, and that Plaintiff has failed to allege that any

retaliatory delay in sending Plaintiff’s mail was related to or caused by Plaintiff’s exercise of a

constitutional right. R & R at 7-10; see Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996); see Sorrano’s Gasco,

Case 3:06-cv-01664-WQH-WMC Document 38 Filed 03/19/08 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

- 5 - 06CV1664 WQH (WMc)

Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir. 1989). 

The Court finds that the Report and Recommendation correctly concluded that Plaintiff’s

claims for violation of 15 C.C.R. § 3147(b), the First Amendment, retaliation , and denial of Plaintiff’s

right to access the courts should be dismissed. In addition, the Court finds that the Report and

Recommendation correctly concluded that these claims should be dismissed with prejudice because

Plaintiff has had two previous opportunities to amend his Complaint and it is clear that the deficiencies

cannot be cured by amendment. R & R at 12. The Court also finds that the Report and

Recommendation correctly concluded that the Court need not strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive

damages and designate this case as a strike against Plaintiff’s right to file future legal actions. R &

R at 10-12.

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 33) is adopted in

its entirety. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. # 21) Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is

GRANTED. Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages and to designate

a strike against Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (Doc. #22) is DENIED. The Clerk of the

Court is ordered to close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 19, 2008

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01664-WQH-WMC Document 38 Filed 03/19/08 Page 5 of 5