Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01396/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01396-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

DAVID SCOTT HARRISON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KAREN HILLIARD, et. al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 15-1396 NJV (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §

1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 3.)

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 which 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).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary;

the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the

grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations

omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual

Case 3:15-cv-01396-CRB Document 4 Filed 07/14/15 Page 1 of 6
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

allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment] to relief'

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief

above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)

(citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has recently explained

the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the

framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are

well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine

whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,

679 (2009). 

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

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff presents many allegations regarding his confinement in San Quentin State

Prison involving retaliation, delivery of his mail, confiscation of a book, gender

discrimination, and denial of access to the courts.

"Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five

basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an

inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner's protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled

the inmate's exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably

advance a legitimate correctional goal." Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th

Cir. 2005) (footnote omitted). Accord Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995)

(prisoner suing prison officials under § 1983 for retaliation must allege that he was

retaliated against for exercising his constitutional rights and that the retaliatory action did

Case 3:15-cv-01396-CRB Document 4 Filed 07/14/15 Page 2 of 6
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

not advance legitimate penological goals, such as preserving institutional order and

discipline); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (same); Rizzo

v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532 (9th Cir. 1985) (contention that actions "arbitrary and

capricious" sufficient to allege retaliation). 

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)). A prison, however, may adopt regulations or practices which impinge on a

prisoner's First Amendment rights as long as the regulations are "reasonably related to

legitimate penological interests." See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). The Turner

standard applies to regulations and practices concerning all correspondence between

prisoners and to regulations concerning incoming mail received by prisoners from

non-prisoners. See Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 413. 

Prisoners also have a liberty interest in the receipt of mail, including subscription

publications, which triggers procedural due process guarantees. Krug v. Lutz, 329 F.3d

692, 696-967 (9th Cir. 2003). If prison officials withhold mail, a prisoner has a due process

right to receive notice that his incoming mail is being withheld. See Frost v. Symington,

197 F.3d 348, 353-54 (9th Cir. 1999); see also Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145,

1152-53 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that due process rights apply to withheld mail where

prisoners had constitutionally protected right to receive the mail). A prisoner also has a due

process right to appeal the exclusion of mail to a prison official other than the one who

made the initial exclusion decision. See Krug, 329 F.3d at 697-98 & n.5.

The Ninth Circuit has found to be unconstitutional the prison policies limiting the

distribution of gift and solicited publications in several different cases in which it applied the

Turner test. Hrdlicka v. Reniff, 631 F.3d 1044, 1050 (9th Cir. 2011). In Crofton v. Roe, 170

F.3d 957, 961 (9th Cir. 1999), the court struck down a regulation that prohibited a prisoner

from receiving a book that had been ordered for his by his stepfather. Hrdlicka, 631 F.3d at

1050. An Oregon prison regulation that banned all bulk mail (also referred to as standard

Case 3:15-cv-01396-CRB Document 4 Filed 07/14/15 Page 3 of 6
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

mail), as applied to subscription non-profit organization bulk mail, was struck down by the

Ninth Circuit because the regulation effectively barred access to core protected speech and

bore no rational relationship to legitimate penological interests. See Prison Legal News v.

Cook, 238 F.3d 1145, 1150 (9th Cir. 2001). 

"The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment commands that no

State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,' which

is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike." City of

Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985) (quoting Plyler v. Doe, 457

U.S. 202, 216 (1982)); Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1168 (9th Cir. 2005)

(evidence of different treatment of unlike groups does not support an equal protection

claim). 

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). To establish a

claim for any violation of the right of access to the courts, the prisoner must prove that there

was an inadequacy in the prison's legal access program that caused him an actual injury. 

See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 350-55. To prove an actual injury, the prisoner must show that the

inadequacy in the prison's program hindered his efforts to pursue a non-frivolous claim

concerning his conviction or conditions of confinement. See id. at 354-55.

Plaintiff’s complaint describes various issues that have arisen while confined at the

prison. He alleges that defendant Hilliard retaliated against him in February 2014 with

respect to a prison grievance. He states that defendants Muhammad, Lile, and Chappell

improperly confiscated a book in August 2013. He states that Muhammad, Lile, Chappell,

and Pasley have delivered his mail late or not delivered certain mail from October 2013 to

August 2014. He alleges that female prisoners are allowed to purchase different products

such as clothing, food, drinks, objects, and appliances, which he cannot purchase, in

violation of equal protection. He also argues that defendants Baxter and Davis denied him

access to the courts. While plaintiff provides specific details regarding some of the claims

Case 3:15-cv-01396-CRB Document 4 Filed 07/14/15 Page 4 of 6
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

5

others only contain vague and conclusory allegations.

Federal Rule Civil Procedure 18(a) provides: "A party asserting a claim to relief as

an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, may join, either as

independent or as alternate claims, as many claims, legal, equitable, or maritime as the

party has against an opposing party." "Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine,

but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against

Defendant 2." George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). "Unrelated claims

against different defendants belong in different suits[.]" Id. 

It is true that Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a) provides that "[p]ersons ...may be joined in one

action as defendants if: (A) any right is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the

alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of

transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants

will arise in the action." However, "[a] buckshot complaint that would be rejected if filed by

a free person – say, a suit complaining that A defrauded the plaintiff, B defamed him, C

punched him, D failed to pay a debt, and E infringed his copyright, all in different

transactions – should be rejected if filed by a prisoner." Id. at 607.

In this action plaintiff has presented unrelated claims against many defendants. The

complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff should focus on a few related

incidents and he must identify the specific actions of the defendants and describe how they

violated his constitutional rights.

CONCLUSION

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the

standards set forth above. The amended complaint must be filed within twenty-eight (28)

days of the date this order is filed and must include the caption and civil case number used

in this order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an

amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all

the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.

Case 3:15-cv-01396-CRB Document 4 Filed 07/14/15 Page 5 of 6
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

6

1992). He may not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to

amend within the designated time will result in the dismissal of this action.

2. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed

“Notice of Change of Address,” and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion. 

Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 14, 2015 

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01396-CRB Document 4 Filed 07/14/15 Page 6 of 6