Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00251/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00251-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DESHA CARTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. ROJAS,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-CV-00251-OWW-DLB-P

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

(Doc. 1)

I. Screening Order

A. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 19, 2006. 

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

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner 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).

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

///

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

Case 1:06-cv-00251-OWW -DLB Document 12 Filed 04/27/07 Page 1 of 4
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

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467

U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citingConley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt

Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under this

standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg.

Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most

favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395

U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

B. Summary of Plaintiff’s Complaint

The events at issue in the instant action allegedly occurred at Corcoran State Prison, where

plaintiff was formerly incarcerated. Plaintiff names prison employee Michael Rojas as the only

defendant. Plaintiff is seeking money damages.

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that in May 2004, defendant Rojas refused to forward his

mail to the Kings County Superior Court and the Kings County District Attorney. Plaintiff further

alleges that in August 2004, defendant Rojas refused to forward a personal letter to his family in

which he requested that his family lodge a complaint against defendant Rojas. Plaintiff contends that

defendant’s refusal to process his mail violated his right to access to the court’s system. Plaintiff

also alleges that defendant slandered plaintiff to other prisoners.

 C. Plaintiff’s Section 1983 Claims

To the extent that plaintiff is alleging that the failure of defendants to mail his documents

violates his First Amendment right to access to the courts, plaintiff is advised that a prisoner alleging

a violation of his right of access to the courts must demonstrate that he has suffered “actual injury.”

Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-50 (1996). The right to access the courts is limited to direct

criminal appeals, habeas corpus proceedings, and civil rights actions challenging conditions of

confinement. Id. at 354-55. “An inmate cannot establish relevant actual injury simply by

establishing that his prison’s law library or legal assistance program is sub-par in some theoretical

sense.” Id. at 351. Rather, the inmate “must go one step further and demonstrate that the library or

legal assistance program hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim.” Id. The actual-injury

Case 1:06-cv-00251-OWW -DLB Document 12 Filed 04/27/07 Page 2 of 4
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

requirement mandates that an inmate “demonstrate that a nonfrivolous legal claim had been

frustrated or was being impeded.” Id. at 353. In Lewis v. Casey, the Supreme Court defined

prisoners’ right of access to the courts as simply the “right to bring to court a grievance.” Id. at 354.

The Court specifically rejected the notion that the state must enable a prisoner to “litigate effectively

once in court.” Id. (quoting and disclaiming language contained in Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817,

825-26 (1977)); see also Cornett v. Donovan, 51 F.3d 894, 898 (9 Cir. 1995) (determining that

th

prisoners’ right of access to the courts is limited to the pleading stage of a civil rights action or

petition for writ of habeas corpus). Here, plaintiff alleges that his documents were not mailed.

Plaintiff does not allege any “actual injury.” Thus, plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief under

section 1983.

Further, mere verbal harassment or abuse does not violate the Constitution and, thus, does

not give rise to a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136,

139 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff’s allegations that defendant “slandered” him do not give rise to a

cognizable claim for relief under section 1983. 

D. Conclusion

The court finds that plaintiff’s complaint does not contain any claims upon which relief may

be granted under section 1983. The court will provide plaintiff with the opportunity to file an

amended complaint to cure the deficiencies, if plaintiff wishes to do so.

In the event that plaintiff does wish to amend his complaint, plaintiff is advised Local Rule

15-220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior

pleading. 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.

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions

complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy,

625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how each named

defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some

Case 1:06-cv-00251-OWW -DLB Document 12 Filed 04/27/07 Page 3 of 4
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

affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v.

Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy,

588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff must file an

amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the court in this order, 

3. If plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed for failure to

obey a court order and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 27, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0h UNI j8 TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00251-OWW -DLB Document 12 Filed 04/27/07 Page 4 of 4