Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06029/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06029-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MUHAREM KURBEGOVICH, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

DEPUTY FBI DIRECTOR, et al., ) 

 )

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:04-cv-6029-REC-SMS 

ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT 

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE

A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, OR, IN

THE ALTERNATIVE, A STATEMENT OF

INTENTION TO PROCEED ON THE

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT, NO LATER THAN

THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF

SERVICE OF THIS ORDER

INFORMATIONAL ORDER

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an

action for damages and other relief concerning alleged civil

rights violations against an unnamed postmaster and unnamed

deputy FBI director. The matter has been referred to the

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules

72-302 and 72-304. The complaint was filed on July 29, 2004, and

was re-designated as a regular civil action on November 28, 2005.

Pending before the Court is the complaint filed on July 29, 2004.

I. Screening the Complaint

The Court must screen complaints brought by prisoners

seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer. 28

Case 1:04-cv-06029-OWW -SMS Document 8 Filed 12/15/05 Page 1 of 10
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

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion

thereof if the Court determines that an allegation of poverty is

untrue or that the action is 1) frivolous or malicious, 2) fails

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 3) seeks

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b), 1915(e)(2).

 In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the Court

must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question,

Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740

(1976), construe the pro se pleadings liberally in the light most

favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447

(9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor,

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a

claim, leave to amend should be granted to the extent that the

deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v.

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). A

complaint, or a portion thereof, should only be dismissed for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it

appears beyond doubt that the Plaintiff can prove no set of

facts, consistent with the allegations, in support of the claim

or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King &

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355

U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log

Owners’ Ass’n., Inc., 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981).

Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is

proper only where it is obvious that the Plaintiff cannot prevail

on the facts that he has alleged and that an opportunity to amend

Case 1:04-cv-06029-OWW -SMS Document 8 Filed 12/15/05 Page 2 of 10
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

would be futile. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d at 1128.

A claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in

law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). A

frivolous claim is based on an inarguable legal conclusion or a

fanciful factual allegation. Id. A federal court may dismiss a

claim as frivolous if it is based on an indisputably meritless

legal theory or if the factual contentions are clearly baseless.

Id.

The test for malice is a subjective one that requires the

Court to determine whether the applicant is proceeding in good

faith. Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab. Co., 236 U.S. 43, 46

(1915); see Wright v. Newsome, 795 F.2d 964, 968 n. 1 (11th Cir.

1986). A lack of good faith is most commonly found in repetitive

suits filed by plaintiffs who have used the advantage of costfree filing to file a multiplicity of suits. A complaint may be

inferred to be malicious if it suggests an intent to vex the

defendants or abuse the judicial process by relitigating claims

decided in prior cases, Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1309

(D.C.Cir. 1981); if it threatens violence or contains

disrespectful references to the Court, id.; or if it contains

untrue material allegations of fact or false statements made with

knowledge and an intent to deceive the Court, Horsey v. Asher,

741 F.2d 209, 212 (8th Cir. 1984).

In the complaint, Plaintiff, who is imprisoned in Crescent

City, California, complains that two government officers, namely,

the deputy director of the FBI at the FBI office in Fresno and

the Postmaster for Fresno County, have interfered with

Plaintiff’s mail. Plaintiff alleges that due to implementation of

Case 1:04-cv-06029-OWW -SMS Document 8 Filed 12/15/05 Page 3 of 10
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 refers to a document styled as a letter to a

court clerk for the specifics of the confiscation, and in this

attachment, Plaintiff names numerous officers at his prison who

by July 2003 had confiscated 500 legal documents, and he alleges

that another officer had later intercepted in September 2003

documents in which Plaintiff had attempted to appeal this

conduct. Plaintiff also alleges that two officers in prison had

told him that they were obeying a memo that instructed them to

turn all Plaintiff’s mail over to security, where the mail

vanished. However, because Plaintiff refers to this as matter

concerning exhaustion of administrative remedies, and because

Plaintiff formally designates as defendants only two officials

located in Fresno outside the prison, the Court construes

Plaintiff’s complaint as relating only to the conduct of the

Fresno FBI deputy directory and postmaster. 

4

the Patriot Act, non of his “NON-JUDICATORY” mail to addresses in

Fresno County reached the addressee because the postmaster in

Fresno County confiscated it and then gave it to Fresno FBI

agents, who either destroyed it or turned it over to the United

States Secret Service. (Cmplt. at 3.) Further, none of

Plaintiff’s thirteen letters to professors in Fresno County

“DURING JUNE 2003 AND THIS DATE” have reached the addressee (Id.

at 3.) Plaintiff further alleges that this confiscation was

effected clandestinely with no documentary notification to him.

He states that he is submitting his complaint in each

jurisdiction for which he has documentary evidence.1 He alleges

that the reason for Defendants’ conduct is not to protect

national security, but rather to protect various government

officials from the consequences of evidence consisting of

previous communications from Plaintiff which would indicate that

government officials had been informed by Plaintiff that Osama

would attack on September 11, 2001, but failed at that time to

credit Plaintiff’s information of an impending attack. (Id. at

2/2.)

Case 1:04-cv-06029-OWW -SMS Document 8 Filed 12/15/05 Page 4 of 10
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

II. First Amendment Claim

In Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388

(1971) (involving a suit for damages for a Fourth Amendment

violation relating to a warrantless arrest), the Court recognized

an implied private action for damages against federal officers

alleged to have violated a citizen’s constitutional rights while

acting under color of federal authority. However, no such claim

exists against a federal agency; if cognizable, such a claim may

only be brought against the individual officer because the

purpose of the remedy is to deter individuals. Carlson v. Green,

446 U.S. 14, 21 (1980).

Prisoners have “a First Amendment right to send and receive

mail.” Witherow v. Paff, 52 F.3d 264, 265 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Censorship of outgoing prisoner mail is justified if the

following criteria are met: 1) the regulation or practice

furthers “an important or substantial government interest

unrelated to the suppression of expression” such as security,

order, or rehabilitation, and 2) “the limitation on First

Amendment freedoms must be no greater than is necessary or

essential to the protection of the particular governmental

interest involved.” Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 413

(1974); see Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 413-14 (1989).

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges facts supporting an inference

that the federal officials named as defendants acted without a

sufficiently important or substantial governmental interest

unrelated to the suppression of expression, and/or that the

limitation was greater than was necessary or essential to the

protection of any particular governmental interest involved. 

Case 1:04-cv-06029-OWW -SMS Document 8 Filed 12/15/05 Page 5 of 10
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

Plaintiff does not state in what capacity he sues the

Defendants. Although a Bivens claim for damages lies against a

defendant only in the person’s individual capacity, Daly-Murphy

v. Winston, 837 F.2d 348, 355 (9th Cir. 1987), Plaintiff seeks

only injunctive relief in this suit. Plaintiff seeks a hearing at

which the FBI would be required to prove that they are authorized

to manipulate or destroy Plaintiff’s mail at will, and a trial on

the issue of a violation of his rights. It will be inferred that

because Plaintiff proceeds only against unnamed officers,

Plaintiff is proceeding against them in their official capacity.

Compare, Cerrato v. San Francisco Community College District, 26

F.3d 968, 973 n.16 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding in civil rights

actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against state officers

that a suit against an officer necessarily implies that it is

brought against an individual). 

Should Plaintiff choose to amend the complaint instead of

proceeding on the two claims already stated, Plaintiff will have

an opportunity to clarify the capacity, individual or official,

in which he sues the defendants. Plaintiff will also have an

opportunity to insert in the first amended complaint the names,

if known by Plaintiff, of the individuals who are the FBI deputy

director and the postmaster described in the operative paragraphs

of the complaint. 

B. Freedom of Religion

Plaintiff states that his freedom of religion was violated,

but Plaintiff states no facts regarding the violation of any

religious liberty in this instance. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to

state a claim regarding a violation of religious freedom.

Case 1:04-cv-06029-OWW -SMS Document 8 Filed 12/15/05 Page 6 of 10
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

7

However, it is possible that Plaintiff may state facts regarding

a violation of religious freedom; thus, Plaintiff will be

permitted to state facts concerning such a claim in a first

amended complaint.

III. Due Process Claim

Plaintiff complains that his mail was confiscated or

censored without any notice to him. 

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects

prisoners from being deprived of life, liberty, or property

without due process of law. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539,

556 (1974). The interest of prisoners and their correspondents in

uncensored communication by letter has been characterized as a

liberty’ interest within the meaning of the Fourteenth

Amendment. Martinez, 416 U.S. at 418. To establish a procedural

due process claim, a prisoner must generally show 1) a protected

liberty or property interest, and 2) a denial of adequate

procedural protections. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d

1158, 1164 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Plaintiff here alleges that his letters to professors were

confiscated without notice or documentation. Plaintiff has

adequately alleged facts demonstrating a protected liberty

interest and a denial of any procedural protections, whether they

be before the confiscation or the mail or afterwards. Plaintiff

thus has alleged a due process claim.

IV. Amendment of the Complaint or Proceeding upon the Two

 Stated Claims of the Present Complaint

In summary, Plaintiff has stated claims for denial of First

Amendment rights with respect to outgoing mail, and for denial of

Case 1:04-cv-06029-OWW -SMS Document 8 Filed 12/15/05 Page 7 of 10
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

 If Plaintiff files a notice of intention to proceed on the original complaint, the Court will then proceed to

issue orders concerning service on the defendants. If instead Plaintiff files a first amended complaint, the Court will

proceed to screen the first amended complaint before issuing any order to serve the complaint. 

8

procedural due process, with respect to Plaintiff’s prayer for

injunctive relief against the two defendants in their official

capacities. However, Plaintiff has not stated facts establishing

a claim for violation of religious freedom. Nevertheless, it is

possible that Plaintiff may state a claim for religious freedom,

and Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to state such a claim

in an amended complaint.

However, Plaintiff may instead prefer not to file an amended

complaint and instead to proceed against the two defendants only

on the First Amendment mail claim and the procedural due process

claim stated in the original complaint filed in 2004. If

Plaintiff desires to proceed on these two claims instead of

amending the complaint, Plaintiff may so indicate by filing a

statement of intention to proceed on the presently filed

complaint instead of filing a first amended complaint.2

 Thus, the Court concludes that in Plaintiff’s original

complaint, Plaintiff states two claims for relief but does not

state a claim for violation of religious freedom. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff is given leave either to proceed on

the original complaint or to file a first amended complaint.

Plaintiff IS DIRECTED to file no later than thirty days

after the date of service of this order either

1) A statement of intention to proceed on the original

complaint; or

2) A first amended complaint that complies with the

Case 1:04-cv-06029-OWW -SMS Document 8 Filed 12/15/05 Page 8 of 10
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

9

requirements of the pertinent substantive law, the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended

complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case and must

be labeled "First Amended Complaint"; failure to file an amended

complaint in accordance with this order will be considered to be

a failure to comply with an order of the Court pursuant to Local

Rule 11-110 and will result in dismissal of this action; and

3) Plaintiff IS INFORMED that a complaint must contain a

short and plain statement as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a

complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the

claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency,

733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at

least some degree of particularity overt acts which the

defendants engaged in that support Plaintiff's claim. Id.

In addition, Plaintiff IS INFORMED that the Court cannot

refer to a prior pleading in order to make Plaintiff's amended

complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior

pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an amended

complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay,

375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once Plaintiff files an amended

complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in

the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original

complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must

be sufficiently alleged.

Finally, Plaintiff IS INFORMED that a failure to file a

statement of intention to proceed on the original complaint or an

Case 1:04-cv-06029-OWW -SMS Document 8 Filed 12/15/05 Page 9 of 10
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

10

amended complaint in a timely manner, or to seek an extension of

time before the due date, will be considered a failure to comply

with an order of the Court and will result in a recommendation

that the action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 15, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06029-OWW -SMS Document 8 Filed 12/15/05 Page 10 of 10