Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08150/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08150-3/pdf.json

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

---

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

WO MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rod Dennis Henricks, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Matrese Avila, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-8150-PCT-RCB (MEA)

ORDER

Plaintiff Rod Dennis Henricks is confined in the Apache County Jail in St. Johns,

Arizona. In a September 21, 2009 Order, the Court granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis status

and dismissed the Plaintiff’s pro se civil rights Complaint because Plaintiff had failed to state

a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file a first

amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. On October 21, 2009,

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. In a November 10, 2009 Order, the Court

dismissed the First Amended Complaint because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon

which relief could be granted and gave Plaintiff 30 days to file a second amended complaint

that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order.

On December 9, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. #8). The

Court will dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and this action.

I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

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

a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

Case 3:09-cv-08150-RCB--MEA Document 9 Filed 01/05/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised

claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 

A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does not

demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendantunlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009).

“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory

statements, do not suffice.” Id.

“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content

that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for

relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial

experience and common sense.” Id. at 1950. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual

allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there

are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 1951.

II. Second Amended Complaint

In his one-count Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues the following Defendants

at the Apache County Jail: Commander Matrese Avila, Sergeant Rubin Garcia, and Corporal

C. Bond. Plaintiff alleges he was denied his right to attorney-client confidentiality. He

claims that his attorney had advised him that Plaintiff should get any important information

to the attorney as soon as possible. Plaintiff alleges that he tried to obtain an envelope so he

could write to his attorney and provide the attorney with important information, but Plaintiff

is indigent and Defendants Garcia and Bond told him that, “per [Defendant] Avila,” Plaintiff

would not receive another envelope until the following Tuesday because he was only entitled

Case 3:09-cv-08150-RCB--MEA Document 9 Filed 01/05/10 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

to one envelope per week. Consequently, Plaintiff states that he wrote to his attorney on a

postcard and he now feels he will “not be able to receive a fair trial.” 

In his Request for Relief, Plaintiff seeks “jail reform,” a fair trial, and monetary

damages.

III. Failure to State a Claim

“Indigent inmates have a constitutional right to meaningful access to the courts.”

King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 568 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817,

821-23 (1977)). This includes access to a lawyer for trial, paper and pen to draft legal

documents, and stamps to mail them. Bounds, 430 U.S. at 824-25. However, inmates “do

not have an unlimited right to free postage in connection with the right of access to the

courts.” White v. White , 886 F.2d 721, 723 -724 (4th Cir. 1989) (quoting Twyman v. Crisp,

584 F.2d 352, 359 (10th Cir.1978)). The government can adopt “reasonable postage stamp

regulations.” King, 814 F.2d at 568.

In addition, prisoners do not have a right to any particular mean of access to the court.

See Aswegan v. Henry, 981 F.2d 313, 314 (8th Cir. 1992). There is “no established

minimum requirement that a state must meet in order to provide indigent inmates with

adequate access to the courts.” King, 814 F.2d at 568. A court must determine whether the

individual inmate before the court has been denied meaningful access. Id.

To establish that he was denied meaningful access to the courts, a plaintiff must

submit evidence showing that he suffered an “actual injury” as a result of the defendants’

actions. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996). An “actual injury” is “actual prejudice

with respect to contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing

deadline or to present a claim.” Id. at 348.

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that being limited to one envelope per week to

correspond with his attorney denied him access to the courts. Although he claims that he was

unable to call his attorney “collect” to relay the allegedly important information, it appears

Plaintiff did not request that prison officials contact his attorney. Plaintiff states that, after he

wrote his attorney on postcards, Defendant Garcia informed Plaintiff that, “if you need to get

Case 3:09-cv-08150-RCB--MEA Document 9 Filed 01/05/10 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

a hold of your lawyer, just put a request in the box an[d] we will contact your lawyer for you.”

Moreover, it is unclear why Plaintiff did not use to a postcard to request that his attorney call

Plaintiff or visit Plaintiff at the jail. Cf. Pino v. Dalsheim, 558 F. Supp. 673, 674-75

(S.D.N.Y. 1983) (although plaintiff and his attorney would have preferred to communicate

by telephone, the state “is not obligated to provide the best manner of access,” and, therefore,

there was no constitutional violation where inmate was limited to two, eight-minute phone

conversations per month but was allowed unlimited mail correspondence with his attorney and

unlimited private visits). 

Nor has Plaintiff demonstrated that he suffered an actual injury. In his postcards,

Plaintiff informed his attorney that he wanted to get his co-defendant subpoenaed as a defense

witness and that he wanted to put a confidential informant on the stand. Plaintiff claims that

after he wrote the postcards, the prosecutor and his co-defendant’s attorney told his codefendant not to have contact with Plaintiff and the prosecutor informed Plaintiff’s attorney

that the prosecution was not required to produce the confidential informant. Plaintiff has

failed to demonstrate that these events were the result of someone other than his attorney

reading his postcards. A “more likely explanation[]” is that these events were the result of

Plaintiff’s attorney complying with Plaintiff’s instructions in the postcards. See Iqbal, 129

S. Ct. at 1951. Plaintiff’s belief that his ability to obtain a fair trial was compromised is

entirely conclusory and speculative. See Ivey v. Board of Regents of the University of

Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (conclusory and vague allegations will not support

a cause of action). 

IV. Dismissal without Leave to Amend

Because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim in his Second Amended Complaint, the

Court will dismiss his Second Amended Complaint. “Leave to amend need not be given if

a complaint, as amended, is subject to dismissal.” Moore v. Kayport Package Express, Inc.,

885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989). The Court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is

particularly broad where Plaintiff has previously been permitted to amend his complaint.

Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe v. United States, 90 F.3d 351, 355 (9th Cir. 1996). Repeated

Case 3:09-cv-08150-RCB--MEA Document 9 Filed 01/05/10 Page 4 of 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

- 5 -

failure to cure deficiencies is one of the factors to be considered in deciding whether justice

requires granting leave to amend. Moore, 885 F.2d at 538. 

Plaintiff has made three efforts at crafting a viable complaint and appears unable to do

so despite specific instructions from the Court. The Court finds that further opportunities to

amend would be futile. Therefore, the Court, in its discretion, will dismiss Plaintiff’s Second

Amended Complaint without leave to amend.

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc. #8) and this action are dismissed

for failure to state a claim, and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

(2) The Clerk of Court must make an entry on the docket stating that the dismissal

for failure to state a claim may count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Dated this 30th day of December, 2009.

Case 3:09-cv-08150-RCB--MEA Document 9 Filed 01/05/10 Page 5 of 5