Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00519/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00519-3/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

KRZYSTOF WOLINSKI,

Plaintiff,

v.

N. ACOSTA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00519-LJO-SAB-PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO 

STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR 

RELIEF

(ECF NO. 1)

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

DUE IN THIRTY DAYS

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(ECF No. 11)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME AS MOOT

(ECF No. 12)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff‟s complaint, filed April 3, 

2015.

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (CDCR) at Salinas Valley State Prison, brings this action against correctional 

officials employed by the CDCR at Corcoran State Prison, where the events at issue occurred. 

Plaintiff names as Defendants Sergeant D. Hernandez, Correctional Officer (C/O) N. Acosta and 

C/O M. Zepeda. On June 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time and a request 

Case 1:15-cv-00519-LJO-SAB Document 14 Filed 09/01/15 Page 1 of 7
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

for the Court to order prison officials to provide him with paper and writing instruments. 

Plaintiff vaguely referenced an inability to file an amended complaint and recounted difficulties 

in receiving writing supplies. On June 16, 2015, an order was entered, advising Plaintiff that he 

could file an amended complaint as a matter of right, without leave of court and granting 

Plaintiff an extension of time in which to do so. (ECF No. 7.) On July 31, 2015, an order was 

entered, denying Plaintiff‟s motion for an order directing prison officials to give him writing 

materials on the ground that the Court did not have jurisdiction over those officials. (ECF No. 

10.) On August 6, 2015, a recommendation of dismissal was entered because Plaintiff had not 

filed an amended complaint. (ECF No. 11.) On August 14, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for a 60 

day extension of time “to file documents, motions, and a response.” In his motion, Plaintiff 

again refers to his difficulty getting writing materials, and seeks an extension of time in order to 

contact the Polish Consulate in order to get writing materials.

Because the August 6, 2015, recommendation of dismissal was entered on the ground 

that Plaintiff had failed to file an amended complaint and the Court has not screened the original 

complaint, the recommendation of dismissal will be vacated. The Court will, by this order, 

screen the original complaint. Plaintiff‟s motion for extension of time to file a response is 

therefore moot. 

Regarding Plaintiff‟s complaint that he does not have access to writing material and seeks 

outside assistance, the Court refers Plaintiff to the order and recommendation entered on July 9, 

2015, in Wolinski v. Stoll, et al., No. 1:15-cv-00468-AWI-JLT (PC)(ECF No. 8). That order 

requested the Litigation Office at Salinas Valley State Prison to investigate Plaintiff‟s ability to 

obtain writing materials for indigent inmates and to facilitate Plaintiff‟s access to the law library 

and to any other available legal resources. The Court recommended that Plaintiff‟s request for 

an order directing the Warden to provide Plaintiff with pro se writing supplies and law library 

access be denied for lack of jurisdiction.

II.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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

Case 1:15-cv-00519-LJO-SAB Document 14 Filed 09/01/15 Page 2 of 7
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

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 on which relief may be granted,” or 

that “seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B).

A complaint 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). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate 

that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s rights. Jones v. 

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir.2002). 

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings 

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 

1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012)(citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff‟s claims must be 

facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer 

that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss 

v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant 

has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are „merely consistent with‟ a defendant‟s 

liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 

F.3d at 969. 

III.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff alleges that on April 4, 2014, Defendants Acosta and Zepeda were assigned as 

transportation officers for Plaintiff‟s transfer from CSP Corcoran to Kern Valley State Prison. 

Prior to loading Plaintiff into the van, Defendants ordered Plaintiff to surrender his prescription 

eyeglasses for security reasons. Upon arrival at Kern Valley State Prison, Plaintiff asked for his 

glasses. Plaintiff alleges that “both correct. offic. swiftly left living behind my bag with 

Case 1:15-cv-00519-LJO-SAB Document 14 Filed 09/01/15 Page 3 of 7
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

medications but no Rx‟s glasses which they stole from me on 04-04-2014. Unfortunately they 

forgot that property inventory form CDC 1083 was issued to me.[sic]” (Compl. ¶ IV.) Plaintiff 

alleges that Sgt. Hernandez “maliciously denied my 602 & perjured my medical chrono CDCR 

7410.” 

IV.

DISCUSSION

A. Deprivation of Property

The Due Process Clause protects prisoners from being deprived of property without due 

process of law, Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974), and prisoners have a protected 

interest in their personal property Hansen v. May, 502 F.2d 728, 730 (9th Cir. 1974). However, 

while an authorized, intentional deprivation of personal property is actionable under the Due 

Process Clause, see Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 532 n. 13 (1984)(citing Logan v. 

Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (1982)); Quick v. Jones, 754 F.2d 1521, 1524 (9th Cir. 

1985), neither negligent nor unauthorized intentional deprivations of property by a state 

employee “constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause of the 

Fourteenth Amendment if a meaning post-deprivation remedy for the loss is available.” Hudson, 

468 U.S. at 533. California law provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy for any property 

deprivations. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-817 (9th Cir. 1994)(citing Cal. Gov‟t Code 

§§ 810-995). The allegations of the complaint clearly indicate an unauthorized deprivation of 

property. Because California has an adequate post-deprivation remedy, Plaintiff cannot state a 

claim for relief on his claim regarding the loss of his prescription eyeglasses.

B. Eighth Amendment

Plaintiff may, however, hold Defendants liable if he alleges facts indicating that 

depriving Plaintiff of his eyeglasses was intentional and caused him serious injury. In order to 

violate the Eighth Amendment proscription against cruel and unusual punishment, there must be 

a “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 

1131 (9th Cir. 2000)( quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). Lopez takes a twoprong approach to evaluating whether medical care, or lack thereof, rises to the level of 

Case 1:15-cv-00519-LJO-SAB Document 14 Filed 09/01/15 Page 4 of 7
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

deliberate indifference. First, a court must examine whether the plaintiff‟s medical needs were 

serious. See Id. Second, a court must determine whether “officials intentionally interfered with 

[the plaintiff‟s] medical treatment.” Id. at 1132.

Here, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that satisfy either prong. There are no facts 

alleged indicating that taking Plaintiff‟s prescription eyewear was intentional. Plaintiff‟s own 

allegations indicate that they were taken for security reasons. There are no facts alleged 

indicating that either Acosta or Zepeda knew that Plaintiff had an objectively serious medical 

condition or that taking Plaintiff‟s eyeglasses would case or exacerbate serious injury. This 

claim should therefore be dismissed with leave to amend. 

C. Grievance Process

The only conduct charged to Sgt. Hernandez is his participation in the grievance process. 

There is no liberty interest in a prison grievance procedure as it is a procedural right only. Mann 

v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 

1993). The prison grievance process does not confer any substantive rights upon inmates and 

actions in reviewing appeals cannot serve as a basis for liability under section 1983. Buckley, 

997 F.2d at 495. Plaintiff‟s allegations as to Defendant Hernandez should therefore be 

dismissed.

V.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff‟s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may 

be granted. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint regarding his Eighth 

Amendment claim within thirty (30) days. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 

1987). Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his 

amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007)(no “buckshot” 

complaints).

Plaintiff‟s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what 

each defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s constitutional or other federal rights. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678. “The inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the 

Case 1:15-cv-00519-LJO-SAB Document 14 Filed 09/01/15 Page 5 of 7
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

duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to 

have caused a constitutional deprivation.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief 

above the speculative level. . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted).

Finally, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, Forsyth v. Humana, 

Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), 

and must be “complete in and of itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading,” 

Local Rule 220. “All causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in 

an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers 

Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474. 

Plaintiff is advised that any requests for extension of time will only be granted upon a 

showing of good cause. The Court will not delay or hold this action in abeyance while Plaintiff 

seeks assistance from outside sources. The issues in this case are simple, and Plaintiff does not 

need several pages to cure the defects identified in this order. The complaint is not dismissed for 

lack of legal argument or analysis, but for failure to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for 

relief. The Court has advised Plaintiff of the relevant legal standard. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The August 6, 2015, findings and recommendations are vacated;

2. The August 14, 2015, motion for extension of time is denied as moot;

3. The Clerk‟s Office shall send to Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

4. Plaintiff‟s complaint, filed April 3, 2015, is dismissed for failure to state a claim;

5. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file 

an amended complaint; and

//

//

//

//

//

Case 1:15-cv-00519-LJO-SAB Document 14 Filed 09/01/15 Page 6 of 7
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

7

6. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, the 

Court will recommend that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to 

state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 31, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00519-LJO-SAB Document 14 Filed 09/01/15 Page 7 of 7