Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01992/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01992-0/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

MONTE HANEY, 

Plaintiff, 

 v.

FRANK A. McGUIRE; C. WONG; J.

HUNTER; I. CALANOE,

Defendants. /

No. C 15-1992 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

This is a pro se civil rights complaint filed by a California prisoner proceeding pro se

under 42 U.S.C. 1983, against the Clerk and three Deputy Clerks of the California Supreme

Court, Frank A. McGUIRE, C. Wong, J. Hunter and I. Calanoe. He claims that defendants

improperly failed to file a document accusing an attorney of misconduct. Plaintiff is granted

leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. For the reasons discussed below, the

complaint is DISMISSED.

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). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the

Case 3:15-cv-01992-WHA Document 4 Filed 06/02/15 Page 1 of 3
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

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; the

statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds

upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations 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, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A

complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id.

at 1974. Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901

F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

B. LEGAL CLAIMS 

Plaintiff alleges that he sent a document accusing an attorney of misconduct to the

California Supreme Court, and he claims that defendants, who are the Clerk of Court and three

deputy clerks, violated his constitutional right of access to the courts by refusing to file the

document. 

Defendants explained to plaintiff that the document could not be filed because plaintiff

did not submit “final” correspondence from the State Bar of California indicating that it had not

and would not take action against the attorney (Compl. Exs. C, G). In addition, Plaintiff did not

submit the required number of copies of the document or proof that they had been served upon

the state bar officials, as required under the court rules (Compl. Ex. F). Plaintiff disagrees with

defendants’ actions because he included a letter from the State Bar declining to proceed against

the attorney (Compl. Ex. E). It is clear from the State Bar’s letter, however, that, as explained

by defendants, it is not the final letter from the State Bar instructing plaintiff that he could

proceed to the California Supreme Court (Compl. Exs. E, G). Rather, the letter states that

plaintiff could obtain further assistance from or further review by State Bar officials (Compl.

Ex. E).

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

Case 3:15-cv-01992-WHA Document 4 Filed 06/02/15 Page 2 of 3
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

343, 350 (1996). The right of access to the courts is limited to providing prisoners with the

capabilities to attack their convictions or sentences directly or collaterally and to file Section

1983 claims challenging the conditions of their confinement. Id. at 355. “Impairment of any

other litigating capacity is simply one of the incidental (and perfectly constitutional)

consequences of conviction and incarceration.” Ibid. The right of access to the courts does not

extend to plaintiff’s pursuing a complaint of misconduct by his defense attorney because the

complaint is not an attack on his conviction, sentence or conditions of confinement. Plaintiff’s

allegations, if true, do not amount to a violation of his constitutional rights and therefore do not

state a cognizable claim for relief under Section 1983. 

Moreover, defendants are immune from plaintiff’s damages claims. Individuals

performing functions necessary to the judicial process are immune from damages. Miller v.

Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 895-96 (9th Cir. 2003). State actors are granted absolute immunity

from damages liability in suits under Section 1983 only for actions taken while performing a

duty functionally comparable to tasks performed by judges at common law. Id. at 897. Filing

documents that comport with court rules — and refusing documents that do not — are judicial

tasks that satisfy the Miller test. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set out above, this action is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable

claim for relief. 

The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1 , 2015. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:15-cv-01992-WHA Document 4 Filed 06/02/15 Page 3 of 3