Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01421/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01421-3/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID RYAN EHA,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

NORTH KERN STATE PRISON,

 Defendants.

1:15-CV-01421-LJO-EPG-PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

(ECF No. 1)

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE TO FILE 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff David Ryan Eha (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing 

this action on September 21, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) In Plaintiff’s Complaint, Plaintiff claims that 

the indigent envelope delivery system at North Kern State Prison (“NKSP”) was late to deliver 

envelopes. For the reasons described below, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint with 

leave to amend. 

I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A(a). 

The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 

legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 

Case 1:15-cv-01421-LJO-EPG Document 15 Filed 10/06/16 Page 1 of 5
2

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

that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 

' 1915A(b)(1), (2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have 

been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action or 

appeal fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

A complaint is required to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing 

that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are 

not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are 

taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart 

Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that

is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. While factual allegations are accepted as true, 

legal conclusions are not. Id.

To state a viable claim for relief, Plaintiff must set forth sufficient factual allegations to 

state a plausible claim for relief. Id. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 

(9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility 

standard. Id. 

II. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

Plaintiff alleges that the indigent envelope delivery system in NKSP at the cell hall of 

D-2-B was late to deliver their envelopes for over five weeks straight, beginning on July 13, 

2015. At one point, for four weeks, no indigent envelopes had been delivered. As of the time 

of the complaint, the delivery system was still about a week behind in delivery. Even though 

Plaintiff now has his five envelopes for each week, Plaintiff asks for a stricter rule going 

forward. Plaintiff also requests criminal charges against the individuals who caused the delay, 

as well as $54.8 billion in a single one-time payment. 

///

///

Case 1:15-cv-01421-LJO-EPG Document 15 Filed 10/06/16 Page 2 of 5
3

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

III. ANALYSIS OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS

A. Legal Standards

Section 1983 provides a cause of action against any person who, under color of state 

law, “subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation 

of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “A 

person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of 

section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts, or omits to 

perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint 

is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). “In a § 1983 action, the 

plaintiff must also demonstrate that the defendant’s conduct was the actionable cause of the 

claimed injury. To meet this causation requirement, the plaintiff must establish both causationin-fact and proximate causation.” Harper v. City of L.A., 533 F.3d 1010, 1026 (9th Cir. 2008)

(internal citations omitted). Proximate cause requires “‘some direct relation between the injury 

asserted and the injurious conduct alleged.”’ Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York, 559 U.S. 

1, 130 (2010) (quoting Holmes v. Secs. Investor Prot. Corp., 503 U.S. 258, 268 (1992)).

Prisoners have a right under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to litigate claims 

challenging their sentences or the conditions of their confinement without direct interference 

from prison officials. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996); Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 

1090, 1103 (9th Cir. 2011); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 824–25 (1977). However, the right 

of access is merely the right to bring to court a grievance the inmate wishes to present, and is 

limited to direct criminal appeals, habeas petitions, and civil rights actions. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 

354. To claim a violation of this right, a plaintiff must show that he has suffered an actual 

injury as a result of the alleged interference. Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002); 

Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351. In other words, he must be able to show that the deprivation has 

directly impacted the relevant litigation in a manner adverse to him. Id. at 348 (defining “actual 

injury” as “actual prejudice with respect to contemplated or existing litigation, such as the 

inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a claim”). 

///

Case 1:15-cv-01421-LJO-EPG Document 15 Filed 10/06/16 Page 3 of 5
4

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

B. Analysis of Plaintiff’s Claims in Light of Legal Standards

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim under the legal standards cited above. 

Plaintiff has not alleged that he was injured by interference by NKSP in the provision of 

envelopes. A delay in the provision of envelopes in insufficient. Moreover, violating an 

internal prison rule in itself does not establish a constitutional violation under section 1983. 

Plaintiff must establish that the prison directly interfered with the right to bring a grievance to 

the court for criminal appeals, habeas petitions, and civil rights actions. Plaintiff’s complaint 

also fails to specify which individuals were liable for this interference. 

IV. CONCLUSION

The Court finds that Plaintiff=s Complaint fails to state any cognizable claim upon 

which relief may be granted under ' 1983. The Court will dismiss this complaint and give 

Plaintiff leave to amend to file an amended complaint addressing the issues described above. If 

Plaintiff chooses to amend his complaint, he should describe how the delay in the delivery of 

envelopes harmed his ability to access the courts, as described above.

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “leave to amend shall be 

freely given when justice so requires.” Accordingly, the Court will provide Plaintiff with time 

to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified above. Lopez v. Smith, 203 

F.3d 1122, 1126-30 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint 

within thirty days if he chooses to do so.

The amended complaint must allege constitutional violations under the law as discussed 

above. Specifically, Plaintiff must state what each named defendant did that led to the 

deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal rights. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 678; Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). There is no respondeat 

superior liability, and each defendant is only liable for his or her own misconduct. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 676. Plaintiff must also demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the 

deprivation of his rights by acting with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s health or safety, 

which is sufficiently serious. Jones, 297 F.3d at 934 (emphasis added). 

Plaintiff should note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend, it is not 

Case 1:15-cv-01421-LJO-EPG Document 15 Filed 10/06/16 Page 4 of 5
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

for the purpose of changing the nature of this suit or adding unrelated claims. George v. Smith, 

507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints). 

Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, Lacey 

v. Maricopa County, 693 F 3d. 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be complete 

in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading, Local Rule 220. Therefore, in an 

amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each 

defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly 

titled “First Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original 

signed under penalty of perjury. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

2. Plaintiff may file a First Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies identified 

by the Court in this order if he believes additional true factual allegations would 

state a claim, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order;

3. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff shall caption the 

amended complaint “First Amended Complaint” and refer to the case number 

1:15-cv-01421-LJO-EPG-PC; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within 30 days, the Court will 

recommend to the district judge that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed for failure to 

state a claim and failure to comply with a Court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 6, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01421-LJO-EPG Document 15 Filed 10/06/16 Page 5 of 5