Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-03942/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-03942-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVE P. BRUTON,

Plaintiff, 

 v.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SHERIFF,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-3942 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This is a civil rights case filed by an inmate of the Contra Costa County Jail. The

complaint was dismissed in the initial review order because plaintiff had provided only sketchy

and conclusory allegations that his water and mail had been tampered with and that he had not

been provided with adequate medical care. He also was informed that the complaint was

defective because he had failed to link the only defendant, the sheriff, with any putative

violation of his constitutional rights, and that a respondeat superior theory of liability is not

available under Section 1983. He has amended.

In the amendment plaintiff says that he knows his water was tampered with because he

“heard water being poured and my teeth are numb;” that he knows his mail was tampered with

because his grandmother did not get some mail; and that he is suing under various sections of

the California Penal Code. There are no allegations that the only defendant, the sheriff, did

anything. Nor is an isolated instance of interference with mail a constitutional violation. See

Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957, 961 (9th Cir. 1999); Sizemore v. Williford, 829 F.2d 608, 610 (7th

Case 3:08-cv-03942-WHA Document 6 Filed 09/09/08 Page 1 of 2
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

Cir. 1987) (allegations of isolated delay or some other relatively short-term, non-content-based

disruption in delivery of inmate mail not enough to state 1st Amendment claim). His

allegations regarding water are insufficient to state a plausible claim that his health was

endangered to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation. 

Plaintiff’s contentions that state law was violated are not actionable under section 1983,

see West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (element of section 1983 claim is “that a right

secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated”) [emphasis added]; see

also DeShaney v. Winnebago County Social Servs. Dep't, 489 U.S. 189, 201-03 (1989) (section

1983 does not impose liability for violations of duties of care arising out of state tort law);

Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 106 (1984) (federal court may not

instruct state officials on how to conform their conduct to state law); Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S.

693, 700-01 (1976) (to state claim under section 1983 plaintiff must show a specific

constitutional or federal guarantee safeguarding the interests that have been invaded), and

because all of his federal claims will be dismissed, the court declines to retain supplemental

jurisdiction of any state law claims that may have been intended, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) . 

In short, plaintiff has failed to state a claim on any of his contentions. The federal

claims of the complaint therefore are DISMISSED with prejudice. The state law claims are

DISMISSED without prejudice. The clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 8 , 2008. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.08\BRUTON3942.DSM.wpd 

Case 3:08-cv-03942-WHA Document 6 Filed 09/09/08 Page 2 of 2