Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04445/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04445-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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 A. SAAVEDRA, 

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

EDWARD ALAMEIDA, JR., et al.,

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-4445 CRB (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Doc # 2)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the California

Correctional Institution in Tehachapi ("CCI"), has filed a pro se civil rights

complaint for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging various violations of his

federal rights while incarcerated at Salina Valley State Prison ("SVSP"). 

Plaintiff also seeks to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

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). The court must identify cognizable

claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint

"is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

Case 3:05-cv-04445-CRB Document 4 Filed 03/06/06 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

granted," or "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

relief." Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri

v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two 

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).

B. Legal Claims

Plaintiff claims denial of access to the courts, retaliation and denial of an

adequate administrative appeals process while he was incarcerated at SVSP.

Plaintiff first alleges that prison officials violated his right of access to the

courts when they failed to give him access to materials essential for his timely

filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United

States. The allegations fail to state a § 1983 claim for denial of access to the

courts because a review of the pertinent court records makes clear that the

proposed petition for a writ of certiorari was wholly without merit.

To establish a claim for any violation of the right of access to the courts, a

prisoner must prove that there was an inadequacy in the prison's legal access

program that caused him an actual injury. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343,

350-55 (1996). To prove an actual injury, the prisoner must show that the

inadequacy in the prison's program hindered his efforts to pursue a non-frivolous

claim concerning his conviction or conditions of confinement. See id. at 354-55. 

Here, the claims plaintiff intended to present to the Supreme Court in a petition

for a writ of certiorari were those he had unsuccessfully presented to the district

court in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Saavedra v. McGrath, No.

CV-01-06606-ABC(RC) (C.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2002) (order denying petition for a

Case 3:05-cv-04445-CRB Document 4 Filed 03/06/06 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

writ of habeas corpus). When he attempted to appeal the district court's decision,

the district court certified that the appeal had not been taken in good faith and

denied a certificate of appealability. The Ninth Circuit also denied a certificate of

appealability and a subsequent request for rehearing/reconsideration. See

Saavedra v. McGrath, No. 03-55324 (9th Cir. May 14 and Aug. 1, 2003) (orders

denying requests for certificate of appealability and rehearing/reconsideration). 

Plaintiff's attempt to seek further review in the Supreme Court cannot be said to

have been non-frivolous.

Plaintiff next alleges that prison officials retaliated against him for

providing "jail-house lawyer" assistance to other inmates and for filing

grievances. In support, he lists numerous adverse actions he suspects must have

been taken in retaliation for his First Amendment activities. Plaintiff's allegations

will not do. "Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment

retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took

some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner's protected

conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate's exercise of his First

Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate

correctional goal." Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005)

(footnote omitted). Plaintiff's conclusory allegations fall short of satisfying these

basic elements. Moreover, plaintiff need not be provided with an opportunity to

cure this deficiency at this time because the record makes clear that he did not

exhaust available administrative remedies with respect to his retaliation claim (as

opposed to his other claims, which he clearly exhausted). Plaintiff's retaliation

claim is dismissed without prejudice. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-

1201 (9th Cir. 2002) (action must be dismissed without prejudice unless prisoner

exhausted available administrative remedies before he filed suit, even if prisoner

Case 3:05-cv-04445-CRB Document 4 Filed 03/06/06 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

fully exhausts while the suit is pending).

Finally, plaintiff alleges that prison officials denied him an adequate

administrative appeals process and administrative remedies. Plaintiff's

allegations fail to state a claim under § 1983 because it is well-established that

there is no constitutional right to a prison administrative appeal system. See

Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). And a state's creation of a

prison administrative appeal system does not implicate a liberty interest protected

by the Due Process Clause. See Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1430 (7th

Cir. 1996) (prison appeal process is procedural right that does not give rise to

protected liberty interest requiring procedural protections of Due Process

Clause); Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993) (same). 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis

(doc # 2) is DENIED and the complaint is DISMISSED under the authority of 28

U.S.C. § 1915A. 

The clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this order, terminate all

pending motions as moot, and close the file. No fee is due.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 6, 2006 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04445-CRB Document 4 Filed 03/06/06 Page 4 of 4