Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01511/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01511-4/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

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 - 06cv1511

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOBBY SHAWN JANOE,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06 CV 1511 JM (CAB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION AS

MODIFIED 

vs.

DEE STONE, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 26,

2006. The court dismissed his initial complaint on November 16, 2007. (Doc. no. 34.) Pursuant to

the order of dismissal, the first amended complaint (“FAC”) names one defendant: Dee Stone, an

employee of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation at Calipatria State Prison

(“Calipatria”). Defendant now moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s FAC and to strike portions thereof.

Plaintiff opposes the motion and Defendant filed a reply to the opposition. 

On April 28, 2008, Magistrate Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo issued a Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the court grant Defendants’ motion in an order taking

the following action: (1) granting the motion to dismiss Claims One, Four, and Five with prejudice;

(2) denying the motion to dismiss Claims Two and Three; (3) denying the motion to dismiss the FAC

due to qualified immunity; (4) denying the motion to strike the request for punitive damages; and (5)

dismiss the claim for injunctive relief. (R&R at 11-12.) Both Plaintiff and Defendant filed objections.

Case 3:06-cv-01511-JM-WVG Document 56 Filed 08/19/08 Page 1 of 6
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 - 06cv1511

For the reasons set forth below, the court hereby ADOPTS the R&R AS MODIFIED herein.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s § 1983 action arises out of events that occurred during his incarceration at

Calipatria. He claims to have suffered retaliation following several incidents in which defendant

Stone denied him access to Calipatria’s law library. Specifically, he alleges the following

constitutional claims: (1) Defendant violated his First Amendment rights by retaliating against him

for filing administrative complaints against her; and (2) Defendant violated his Fourteenth

Amendment rights by denying him access to the courts. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive

damages. He also seeks “injunctive relief, including, but not limited to, an order requiring defendant

Stone not be able to work as the interim library technical assistant, so as to not be subjected to

retaliation instigated and/or ratified by defendant Stone.” (FAC at 12.)

The R&R provides a thorough and clear statement of the facts (see R&R at 2-3) and the court

hereby incorporates them by reference in this order.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

The court reviews a magistrate judge’s R&R according to the standards set forth in Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) Rule 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636. The court “shall make a de novo

determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made. A judge of the court may

accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate

judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673-74 (1980).

B. Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss

The R&R recommends that the court grant in part and deny in part the motion to dismiss.

Specifically, the R&R concludes that (1) Claims One and Four fail to state a First Amendment

retaliation claim; (2) Claims Two and Three state a viable retaliation claim; and (3) Claim Five fails

to state a Fourteenth Amendment claim for denial of access to the courts.

1. Analysis

Having considered theR&Rand the applicable authorities, the court hereby adoptstheR&R’s

analysis and recommendation regarding the 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, with the following

Case 3:06-cv-01511-JM-WVG Document 56 Filed 08/19/08 Page 2 of 6
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

Even if Bell Atlantic does not articulate the standard by which the court should analyze the

viability of a § 1983 claim, the court also finds dismissal with prejudice inappropriate under the

Conley standard. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957) (“[A] complaint should not be

- 3 - 06cv1511

modifications. 

Plaintiff’sfifth claim alleges denial of his Fourteenth Amendmentright of accessto the courts.

The R&R recommends that the court dismiss this claim because “the alleged denial of access to the

law library on May 3, 2005, May 11, 2005, and July 20, 2005, did not deprive Plaintiff of his ability

to initiate legal action.” (R&R at 9.) The court agrees with the R&R’s analysis and adopts it in full.

Claim Five also fails because Plaintiff does not adequately address at least one of the underlying

claims. To allege an actual injury, Plaintiff must “identify a ‘nonfrivolous,’ ‘arguable’ underlying

claim, . . . whether anticipated or lost[.]” Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002). In the

FAC, Plaintiff lists only the case numbers of the two underlying cases, and explains that one of the

cases involved a civil complaint filed in El Centro Superior Court “because prison guards confiscated

plaintiff[’]s trial transcripts and four forensic books and threw them away.” (FAC at 3.) These

allegations do not give Defendant sufficient notice of at least one of the underlying cases – “Case no.

04-cv-1421” – if not both. See Christopher, 536 U.S. at 415-16. Plaintiff also fails to allege that the

underlying claims were nonfrivolous. See id. at 415. Although Plaintiff more fully explains the

nature of the actions in his opposition to the motion to dismiss (see Opp’n at 7), Plaintiff cannot use

his opposition to cure deficiencies in his pleading. See Swartz v. KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d 756, 763 (9th

Cir. 2007) (in evaluating Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, court considers “only allegations contained

in the pleadings, exhibits attached to the complaint, and matters properly subject to judicial notice”).

The court therefore dismisses Claim Five on this additional basis.

The R&R also recommends that the court dismiss Claims One, Four, and Five with prejudice

and without leave to amend. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint’s “factual

allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell Atlantic

Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965 (U.S. May 21, 2007) (allegations must provide “plausible

grounds to infer” that plaintiff is entitled to relief). In light of the factual allegations in the FAC, the

court cannot conclude that Plaintiff will not be able to “raise a right to relief above the speculative

level.” Id. at 1965.1 The court therefore dismisses Claims One, Four, and Five without prejudice and

Case 3:06-cv-01511-JM-WVG Document 56 Filed 08/19/08 Page 3 of 6
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 dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set

of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.”).

- 4 - 06cv1511

with leave to amend. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 30 days from the date of this

order. Plaintiff may amend only claims One, Four, and Five, and may not add new claims.

2. Objections

Plaintiff objects to the R&R’s recommendation that the court dismiss Claims One, Four, and

Five. He generally does not, however, seek to distinguish the authorities cited in the R&R or

otherwise inform the court of a reasoned basis to decline to adopt the R&R. Instead, Plaintiff’s

opposition largely repeats arguments already raised. To the extent that he repeats his earlier

arguments, the court need not review them again. To the extent that he raises new objections, the

court rejects them for the following reasons. 

First, Plaintiff objects to the R&R’s conclusion that, as to Claim Four, Defendant had a

legitimate reason to deny Plaintiff access to the library on July 20, 2005 (R&R at 7-8). (Pl.’s

Objections at 4-7.) The R&R observes that ducats serve the interests of internal prison security by

allowing the regulation of inmates’ movements. (R&R at 7.) The R&R further reasons that, in the

absence of allegations to the contrary, the court should not presume that Defendant had the authority

to “override” Plaintiff’s work ducat “and instead allow Plaintiff to have free research time in the

library.” (R&R at 8.) The court agrees. Plaintiff argues that Defendant lacked a practical reason to

prevent him from using the library because such use presented no security concern. (Id.) He also

contends that he lacked other means to exercise his right to access the library. (Id.) These arguments

generally fail to address the sufficiency of the allegations in Plaintiff’s pleading under Rule 12(b)(6).

Furthermore, the arguments do not undermine the R&R’s well-reasoned conclusion that Defendant’s

action advanced a legitimate correctional goal. Plaintiff’s position implies that prison officials have

a legitimate interest in controlling prison security only in the face of a specific concern posed by a

specific inmate. The law does not support this conclusion. See, e.g., Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S.

126, 127 (2003) (upholding regulations governing a general category of conduct). 

Second, Plaintiff argues that the R&R interprets too narrowly the law regarding denial of

access to the courts. (Pl.’s Objections at 8.) The R&R accurately construed and applied Lewis v.

Case 3:06-cv-01511-JM-WVG Document 56 Filed 08/19/08 Page 4 of 6
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 - 06cv1511

Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996), and Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403 (2002). Consequently, the

court rejects Plaintiff’s objection. 

Defendant also objects to some of the R&R’s conclusions. Like Plaintiff, Defendant largely

repeats arguments already raised. Defendant additionally argues that Claims Two and Three fail

because Plaintiff “never alleges that he gave [library-access] request slips directly to Defendant Stone,

rather than some other prison official, or that she had personal possession of them.” (Def.’s

Objections at 2.) In the FAC, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant “was responsible for . . . receiving

request slips from prisoners” (FAC at 2), and that Plaintiff “turned in” request slips for library access

during the weeks of May 3, 2005, and May 11, 2005. For Rule 12(b)(6) purposes, the court finds that

these allegations sufficiently connect Defendant to the request slips. The court therefore rejects this

objection and the related objections to the punitive damages and qualified immunity conclusions.

C. Motion to Strike

Having considered the R&R and the applicable authorities, the court hereby adopts the R&R’s

analysis and recommendation regarding the motion to strike Plaintiff’s punitive damages request.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court hereby adopt the R&R’s analysis and recommendations as

modified herein. In sum, the court orders:

1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss the FAC as to Claims One, Four, and Five is

GRANTED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE and WITH leave to amend. Plaintiff may

filed an amended complaint within 30 days from the date of this order. Plaintiff may

amend only Claims One, Four, and Five, and may not add new claims.

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss Claims Two and Three is DENIED.

3. Defendant’s motion to dismiss the FAC due to qualified immunity is DENIED.

4. Defendant’s motion to strike the punitive damages request is DENIED.

//

//

5. The claim for injunctive relief is again dismissed WITH PREJUDICE insofar as

Plaintiff seeks to prevent Stone from acting as interim library technical assistant at

Case 3:06-cv-01511-JM-WVG Document 56 Filed 08/19/08 Page 5 of 6
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 - 06cv1511

Calipatria, but WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the filing of an amended complaint

seeking other available injunctive relief against Stone.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 19, 2008

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:06-cv-01511-JM-WVG Document 56 Filed 08/19/08 Page 6 of 6