Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02894/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02894-0/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 1

 Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction.

(Docket No. 5.)

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL EUGENE SHOTWELL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CHAVEZ-EPPERSON, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 15-2894 EDL (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

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

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 He has been granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis in a separate order. For the reasons stated below, the complaint is DISMISSED

with leave to amend.

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;

Case 3:15-cv-02894-WHA Document 11 Filed 10/27/15 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

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 and

internal quotation marks omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not

need detailed factual 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

for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. 

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 alleges that from 2010 through 2012, Defendants violated his First

Amendment right to send and receive mail; Defendants engaged in retaliation; and

Defendants denied him access to the court. 

Prison officials have a responsibility to forward mail to inmates promptly. See Bryan

v. Werner, 516 F.2d 233, 238 (3d Cir. 1975). Allegations that mail delivery was delayed for

an inordinate amount of time are sufficient to state a claim for violation of the First

Amendment. See Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1432 (7th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff’s

allegations that his incoming and outgoing mail oftentimes disappeared also implicates

Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights. Plaintiff alleges that non-inmates had been sending him

mail, but Plaintiff was consistently not receiving them, or receiving them until after

extraordinary delay. Liberally construed, Plaintiff has stated claims of a violation of the First

Amendment. 

However, for Plaintiff’s claims of retaliation, “Within the prison context, a viable claim

Case 3:15-cv-02894-WHA Document 11 Filed 10/27/15 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

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 Section 1983 for retaliation must allege that he was retaliated against for exercising

his constitutional rights and that the retaliatory action did not advance legitimate

penological goals, such as preserving institutional order and discipline). In addition, Plaintiff

must allege must at least allege that he suffered harm, since harm that is more than

minimal will almost always have a chilling effect. Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 567-68 n.11; see

Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 449 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that a retaliation claim is not

actionable unless there is an allegation of harm). 

Plaintiff has not stated facts sufficient to raise the right to relief above a speculative

level for his retaliation claims. That is, for each assertion of retaliation, Plaintiff must “not

simply recite the elements of a cause of action but must [proffer] sufficient . . . facts to give

fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself effectively. Second, the factual

allegations that are taken as true must plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief, such that it

is not unfair to require the opposing party to be subjected to the expense of discovery and

continued litigation.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). Here, there is no

allegation of harm, or assertion that any of the alleged mail mishaps were performed

“because of” Plaintiff’ protected conduct, nor what that protected conduct is. Without such

information, the complaint does not provide enough facts to state a claim for relief that is

plausible on its face. Thus, Plaintiff’s retaliation claims must be DISMISSED.

Plaintiff’s conclusory statement that defendants denied him access to the courts also

does not state enough facts to raise his claim above the speculative level. Prisoners do

have a constitutional right of access to the courts. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350

Case 3:15-cv-02894-WHA Document 11 Filed 10/27/15 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

(1996). 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 id. 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. Here, because Plaintiff seems to intimate that his right of access to the court is

hindered by active interference by prison officials, Plaintiff may allege an actual injury if, as

a result of the defendants’ alleged actions, for example, a pending lawsuit had been

dismissed. See Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1103-04 (9th Cir. 2011). As currently

pled, Plaintiff’s claim that he was denied access to the courts does not state enough facts

to state a claim that is plausible on its face. 

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with leave to

amend. Plaintiff’s motion for permission to add claims and new defendants is GRANTED. 

Plaintiff must incorporate all his claims and Defendants in one comprehensive amended

complaint. It may be helpful for Plaintiff to organize his amended complaint by separating

out each particular claim and separately setting forth facts in support of each claim so that

Plaintiff’s statements and allegations are clearly defined.

Plaintiff is cautioned that he must link each Defendant to an action or inaction that

actually and proximately caused the deprivation of a federally protected right. Liability may

be imposed on an individual defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the plaintiff can show that

the defendant’s actions both actually and proximately caused the deprivation of a federally

protected right. Lemire v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 726 F.3d 1062, 1085

(9th Cir. 2013). Plaintiff must link Defendants’ actions or inactions with Plaintiff’s claims. 

He must “set forth specific facts as to each individual defendant’s” actions which violated

his or her rights. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). 

To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to impose supervisory liability on ChavezEpperson, Plaintiff is cautioned that a supervisor may be liable under section 1983 upon a

Case 3:15-cv-02894-WHA Document 11 Filed 10/27/15 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

showing of (1) personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or (2) a sufficient

causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional

violation. See Henry A. v. Willden, 678 F.3d 991, 1003-04 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Starr v.

Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011)). Plaintiff should keep in mind that where there

is no evidence that the supervisor was personally involved or connected to the alleged

violation, the supervisor may not be liable. See Edgerly v. City and County of San

Francisco, 599 F. 3d 946, 961-62 (9th Cir. 2010).

For the above reasons, Plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend to

provide the information specified above. 

C. Motion to Appoint Counsel

Plaintiff has moved for appointment of counsel. However, there is no constitutional

right to counsel in a civil case, Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981),

and although district courts may “request” that counsel represent a litigant who is

proceeding in forma pauperis, as Plaintiff is here, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), that does not

give the courts the power to make “coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. United

States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989). 

The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may ask counsel to represent an

indigent litigant only in “exceptional circumstances,” the determination of which requires an

evaluation of both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits and (2) the ability of the

plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. 

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Thus far, the issues are not

complex. At this stage of the case, the Court cannot yet determine whether there is a

likelihood of success on the merits, or whether Plaintiff can articulate his claims sufficiently. 

Therefore, at this time, the motion to appoint counsel will be denied without prejudice.

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)

Case 3:15-cv-02894-WHA Document 11 Filed 10/27/15 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

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 and supplemental complaints, Plaintiff

must include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d

1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the original complaint by

reference. Failure to file an amended complaint within the designated time and in

compliance with this order will result in the dismissal of this action.

2. It is 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).

This order terminates docket numbers 6 and 7.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October , 2015. 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

P:\PRO-SE\EDL\CR.15\Shotwell894dwla.wpd

27

Case 3:15-cv-02894-WHA Document 11 Filed 10/27/15 Page 6 of 6