Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00590/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00590-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

WO KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Laura L. Medley, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Timothy Overton,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-590-PHX-MHM (DKD)

ORDER

Plaintiff Laura L. Medley, who is confined in the Maricopa County Lower Buckeye

Jail, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. On April 18, 2008, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint.

The Court will dismiss the action.

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee

Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $1.33. The remainder of the fee will be

collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income each time the amount

in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate

Order requiring the appropriate government agency to collect and forward the fees according

to the statutory formula. 

Case 2:08-cv-00590-MHM--DKD Document 5 Filed 05/08/08 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 -

II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

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

a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 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). If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the

allegation of other facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint

before dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000)

(en banc). Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed without leave to amend because the

defects cannot be corrected.

III. Amended Complaint

Plaintiff should note that all causes of action alleged in an original complaint which

are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived. Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner

& Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990) (“an amended pleading supersedes the original”).

Accordingly, the Court will consider only those claims raised in the Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff names Ancillary Services Commander Timothy Overton as Defendant to the

Amended Complaint. Plaintiff raises three grounds for relief: (1) Plaintiff’s First

Amendment rights were violated by Inmate Legal Services’ (ILS) policy of processing

inmate legal mail on a “first in, first out” basis, which result in Plaintiff’s legal mail being

delayed by five days; (2) Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights were violated when, on February

25, 2008, an ILS employee opened her outgoing legal mail; and (3) Plaintiff’s Sixth

Amendment rights were violated when, on February 25, 2008, an ILS employee opened her

outgoing legal mail. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief and money damages.

IV. Failure to State a Claim

A. Count I

The facts Plaintiff alleges in Count I are insufficient to support Plaintiff’s allegation

that her constitutional rights were violated. Plaintiff suggests that ILS should prioritize

Case 2:08-cv-00590-MHM--DKD Document 5 Filed 05/08/08 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 -

inmate legal mail on some basis other than in the order it is received from inmates and that

because of the way ILS handles legal mail, her legal mail was delayed for five days in

January 2008. Plaintiff does not allege that she was injured in any way from the five-day

delay nor does she allege that she has been prevented from sending legal mail. Plaintiff’s

allegations in Count I simply do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation and the

Court will dismiss Count I for failure to state a claim.

B. Counts II and III

In Counts II and III, Plaintiff alleges that her outgoing legal mail was opened by a

staff member of ILS on February 25, 2008.

Outgoing legal mail sent by prisoners may only be opened in the presence of sending

inmate, whether the correspondence relates to criminal or civil matters. Ramos v. Lamm,

639 F.2d 559, 582 (10th Cir. 1980). However, a single instance of inadvertent opening of

legal mail outside an inmate’s presence, while not to be condoned, is not actionable as a

constitutional violation. Stevenson v. Koskey, 877 F.2d 1435, 1441 (9th Cir. 1989); Bieregu

v. Reno, 59 F.3d 1445, 1451-52 (3d Cir. 1995) (same); Smith v. Maschner, 899 F.2d 940,

944 (10th Cir. 1990) (an isolated incident of opening prisoner’s constitutionally protected

legal mail, without any evidence of improper motive or resulting interference with the

prisoner’s right to counsel or to access to the courts, does not give rise to a constitutional

violation). Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Counts II and III for failure to state a claim.

V. Dismissal without Leave to Amend

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and finds that the defects in

the Amended Complaint cannot be cured by further amendment. The Court will therefore

dismiss the Amended Complaint without leave to amend.

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #3) is granted.

(2) As required by the accompanying Order to the appropriate government agency,

Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee and is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $1.33.

(3) The Amended Complaint (Doc. #4) is dismissed for failure to state a claim

Case 2:08-cv-00590-MHM--DKD Document 5 Filed 05/08/08 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 -

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment

accordingly.

(4) The Clerk of Court must make an entry on the docket stating that the dismissal

for failure to state a claim counts as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

DATED this 7th day of May, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00590-MHM--DKD Document 5 Filed 05/08/08 Page 4 of 4