Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00496/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00496-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL IZELL SEALS, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

JERRY CARDOZA, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-0496 SBA (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Michael Izell Seals, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at San Quentin State

Prison and a frequent litigant in federal court, filed the instant pro se civil rights complaint under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. He has paid the full filing fee. 

Even when the full filing fee has been paid, a federal court must conduct a preliminary

screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 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 that 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. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Accordingly, the Court will screen the complaint to determine

whether Defendants are required to respond.

Venue is proper in this district as the acts complained of occurred in Lake County, which is

located in this district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Case 4:05-cv-00496-SBA Document 58 Filed 12/03/07 Page 1 of 8
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

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

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 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins,

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

Dismissal for failure to state a claim is warranted if the plaintiff is unable to articulate

"enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

127 S. Ct. 1955, 1973 (2007). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica

Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

II. Legal Claims

Plaintiff names the following as Defendants: parole agents William Wiener and Mark

Hampton; social worker Marian Williams; and parole unit supervisors Jerry Cardoza and Debra

Gonzeles. Plaintiff alleges that he has exhausted his administrative appeals with regard to his claims

against Defendants. He seeks monetary and punitive damages for alleged violations of his civil

rights. 

A. Claims Against Defendant Wiener

Plaintiff alleges the following claims against Defendant Wiener: due process and equal

protection violations; obstruction of justice; racial discrimination; malpractice; and tampering with

evidence. 

Plaintiff claims that Defendant Wiener "failed to live up to his responsibility as [his] parole

agent" because "[Defendant Wiener] failed to help assist . . . in any of [Plaintiff's] legal affairs and

needs that required [Defendant Wiener's] professional assistance." Plaintiff further alleges that he

"lost career wages" because Defendant Wiener "sabotaged all [his] career plans" to become a

professional kickboxer by not preparing a "letter and recommendation package" for Plaintiff's

application for a "California Boxing and Kickboxing license to fight." Additionally, Plaintiff alleges

that, due to Defendant Weiner "continuing to stall [Plaintiff] and make excuses" for not preparing

Case 4:05-cv-00496-SBA Document 58 Filed 12/03/07 Page 2 of 8
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 filed a prior civil rights complaint in Seals v. Mitchell, Case No. C 04-3764 SBA

(PR), alleging that two Lake County Sheriff's Deputies attacked him during his arrest on February 5,

2003. The Court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff's

conclusory allegations did not establish a genuine issue for trial. In his complaint for the instant

action, Plaintiff has repeated the allegations he previously asserted in Case No. C 04-3764 SBA

(PR). Accordingly, any claim related to Plaintiff's arrest on February 5, 2003 is dismissed pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) because it arises out of duplicative causes of action.

3

the package, two Lake County Sheriff's Deputies attacked him by "twisting his arm and choking him

to a state of unconsciousness" in the course of his arrest for charges of drug possession on February

5, 2003.1

 According to Plaintiff, Defendant Wiener "had given up on [him] from the beginning and

had labeled [him] a drug dealer, which is a racist statement being that [Plaintiff] was on parole and

was driving a Mercedes Benz and had on [him] in cash $1313.00" when he was arrested. 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not alleged any facts supporting a claim of constitutional

deprivation within the meaning of § 1983. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988)

(A person deprives another of a constitutional right within the meaning of § 1983 if he does an

affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative act or omits to perform an act which he is legally

required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains.). Section 1983 does not

impose liability for violations of duties of care arising out of state tort law. See DeShaney v.

Winnebago County Dep't of Soc. Serv., 489 U.S. 189, 201-03 (1989). To state a claim a plaintiff

must show a specific constitutional or federal guarantee safeguarding the interests that have been

invaded. See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 697 (1976). Here, Plaintiff's allegations are speculative

and without factual foundation. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable

claim against Defendants Wiener. Accordingly, his claims against Defendants Wiener are

DISMISSED. 

B. Claims Against Defendant Williams

Plaintiff alleges the following claims against Defendant Williams: due process and equal

protection violations; obstruction of justice; racial discrimination; malpractice; and tampering with

evidence. 

Case 4:05-cv-00496-SBA Document 58 Filed 12/03/07 Page 3 of 8
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

According to Plaintiff, he was placed on a parole hold following his arrest on February 5,

2003. During that time, Plaintiff claims that he was "trying to build [his] defense" for his drug

charges and that he also had a separate criminal action, "Criminal Case No. CR 032292," which was

"suspended under 1369 mental competency." Plaintiff claims that his attorney Caroline Zinns

contacted his social worker, Defendant Williams, in an attempt to retrieve his mental health records

in preparation for the mental competency hearing in Case No. CR 032292. Plaintiff alleges that

attorney Zinns informed him on July 1, 2003 that Defendant Williams "thought [Plaintiff] was

faking his mental illness" and that "[his] mental health records would not help [Plaintiff's] defense

and therefore she will not be sending [Plaintiff's] mental health records." Plaintiff further alleges

that Defendant Williams sent attorney Zinns a "California Department of Corrections Confidential

Letter" in which she stated that Plaintiff "wasn't worth being helped" and included a "brief mention

of [Plaintiff's] past history and convictions." According to Plaintiff, Defendant Williams "was

refusing to assist [him] with [his] mental health records to help [him] with [his] defense and criminal

case," and caused attorney Zinns to "turn against [Plaintiff]" and to "[give] up on wanting or trying

to help [him] get [his] mental health records or anything else that [he] wanted, requested, or needed

in [his] defense."

Plaintiff also claims that on July 1, 2003, Judge Stephen Hedstrom of Lake County Superior

Court discharged attorney Zinns "on the grounds of ineffective assistance" and replaced Zinns with

another defense attorney, Thomas C. Quinn. On July 4, 2003, Plaintiff claims he filed a 602 inmate

appeal (Log No. 03-00255) requesting his mental health records to be forwarded to attorney Quinn. 

Plaintiff states in his complaint that he was able to obtain his mental health records through the

inmate appeals process, which was "one of the avenues that was taken to force [Defendant Williams]

to assist [Plaintiff]." Plaintiff has attached to his complaint the second level appeal response. The

response, dated September 15, 2003, stated that his appeal was granted and a copy of Plaintiff's

mental health records was sent to attorney Quinn on July 16, 2003.

Because Plaintiff's mental health records were necessary for the mental competency hearing,

the Court construes this claim as an alleged denial of access to the courts. Prisoners have a

Case 4:05-cv-00496-SBA Document 58 Filed 12/03/07 Page 4 of 8
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

 According to Plaintiff, he was under the custody of parole agents from the Ukiah Parole

Office and was required to go to that office once a month for mandatory meetings. 

5

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). However, a temporary deprivation of an inmate's legal

materials, or in this case Plaintiff's mental health records, does not always rise to the level of a

constitutional violation unless plaintiff can establish actual injury. See Vigliotto v. Terry, 873 F.2d

1201, 1202-03 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Williams initially withheld his mental health records

and only forwarded them to his attorney after his 602 inmate appeal was granted. Plaintiff has failed

to allege actual injury caused by the delay in obtaining his mental health records from Defendant

Williams. The Court finds that Plaintiff has made no showing of actual injury; therefore, he has

failed to state a cognizable claim of denial of access to the courts against Defendant Williams. See

id. Furthermore, the Court finds that Plaintiff's other allegations are conclusory, ambiguous, and

without any factual basis. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Williams are

DISMISSED.

C. Claims Against Defendant Hampton

Plaintiff alleges the following claims against Defendant Hampton: due process and equal

protection violations; obstruction of justice; racial discrimination; and malpractice.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Hampton violated his civil rights on the basis that Defendant

Hampton was "a representative for the California parole board who decided to transfer [Plaintiff]

and [his] parole to Lake County without having a set environment for [him] to live in, and no jobs or

resources offered to assist [him]." Plaintiff states that "[he] had to find his own ride to the [parole]

meeting" even though "Lake County was 50 miles from the Ukiah parole office."2

 Plaintiff claims

that the "parole move was a set up and a parole trap for [him], [an] Afro-American in the county of

[an] all white populated area."

Case 4:05-cv-00496-SBA Document 58 Filed 12/03/07 Page 5 of 8
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

The Court finds that Plaintiff's allegations are conclusory, ambiguous, and without any

factual basis. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit has held that there is no liberty interest at stake in the

transfer of probation jurisdiction. See United States v. Ohler, 22 F.3d 857, 858-59 (9th Cir. 1994)

(the transfer of jurisdiction did not deprive probationer of any right or interest created by 18 U.S.C.

§ 3605, which governs transfers of probation jurisdiction). Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims against

Defendant Hampton are DISMISSED.

D. Claims Against Defendants Cardoza and Gonzeles

According to Plaintiff, Defendants Cardoza and Gonzeles are the supervisors of Defendants

Wiener and Williams, respectively. Plaintiff's complaint does not allege facts demonstrating that

Defendants Cardoza and Gonzeles violated his civil rights. Liberally construed, Plaintiff's complaint

seems to claim that Defendants Cardoza and Gonzeles are liable based on the conduct of their

subordinates. There is, however, no respondeat superior liability under § 1983 solely because a

defendant is responsible for the actions or omissions of another. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040,

1045 (9th Cir. 1989). A supervisor generally "is only liable for constitutional violations of his

subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and

failed to act to prevent them." Id. Therefore, a supervisor may be liable under section 1983 upon a

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. Redman v.

County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (citation omitted). "It has long

been clearly established that '[s]upervisory liability is imposed against a supervisory official in his

individual capacity for his own culpable action or inaction in the training, supervision, or control of

his subordinates, for his acquiescence in the constitutional deprivations of which the complaint is

made, or for conduct that showed a reckless or callous indifference to the rights of others.'" 

Preschooler II v. Clark County School Bd. of Trustees, 479 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2007)

(citations omitted). 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Cardoza instructed Defendant Wiener "to go ahead and put

together a letter and recommendation packet from the Ukiah parole office and the department of

Case 4:05-cv-00496-SBA Document 58 Filed 12/03/07 Page 6 of 8
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

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.05\Seals0496.dismiss.frm 7

corrections so that . . . [he] could get [his] California boxing and kickboxing license to fight." 

Plaintiff, however, has made no allegations in his complaint showing that Defendant Cardoza could

be liable in his individual capacity for his action or inaction in the training, supervision, or control of

Defendant Wiener that resulted in any constitutional violations. Similarly, Plaintiff's complaint fails

to allege that supervisory liability could be imposed on Defendant Gonzeles in her individual

capacity for the training, supervision, or control of Defendant Williams. The Court therefore finds

that Plaintiff has failed to present any evidence of Defendants Cardoza's and Gonzeles's participation

in, direction or knowledge of any alleged constitutional violations. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims

against Defendants Cardoza and Gonzeles are DISMISSED. 

CONCLUSION

 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's claims against Defendants are DISMISSED because he

has failed to present a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint is DISMISSED for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Clerk of the Court shall close the file

and terminate any pending motions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 12/3/07 _______________________________

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-00496-SBA Document 58 Filed 12/03/07 Page 7 of 8
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

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.05\Seals0496.dismiss.frm 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEALS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CARDOZA et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV05-00496 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on December 3, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle

located in the Clerk's office.

Michael Izell Seals V77488

California State Prison - San Quentin

San Quentin, CA 94974

Dated: December 3, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:05-cv-00496-SBA Document 58 Filed 12/03/07 Page 8 of 8