Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02360/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02360-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

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

U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOMER E. HAWKINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARIN SHERIFF; et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 03-2360 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Homer E. Hawkins, currently in custody at San Quentin State Prison, filed this pro se

civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning events in 2002 and 2003 while he was

in custody at the Marin County Jail. On October 6, 2005, the court dismissed the complaint

with leave to file an amended complaint by November 11, 2005. Hawkins filed a document

entitled "leave to amended complaint, civil local rules (10-1), custody and disposition of

exhibits and transcripts, civil local rules (79-4)" on October 19, 2006. (Docket # 22.) That

document consisted of three pages of recitations about the local rules and Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure but did not contain any allegations that could possibly be construed as a

claim for relief. That document was not the amended complaint ordered to be filed. 

Hawkins filed another document entitled "leave to amended complaint, civil local rules (10-

7), the violation was committed by person's acting under the color of state law: 42 U.S.C. §

1983" on December 20, 2005. (Docket # 23.) Even though it was filed after the deadline,

that document presumably is his amended complaint. The amended complaint (Docket # 23)

Case 3:03-cv-02360-SI Document 27 Filed 08/03/06 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

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

is now before the court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

The amended complaint is 10 pages long, almost all of which are recitations of legal

principles from cases or miscellaneous statements of law. The only parts that specific to

Hawkins are at pages 2-3 and 9. At pages 2-3, Hawkins alleges that he submitted numerous

grievances, that somebody he could not see made threatening remarks, that unidentified

officials monitored communications between attorneys and clients in the jail, and that

someone opened mail between June 2002 and June 2004, that Hawkins was escorted by

officials to another part of the jail when he complained, and that "some" of his legal mail

disappear[ed] out of his cell. Id. at 2-3. At page 9, Hawkins alleges that he was threatened

with loss of his law library privileges and other privileges by unidentified persons when he

tried to submit grievances, that somebody didn't respond to his grievances, that he submitted

interrogatories to a city asking for the identification of all grievances and officers but the city

did not respond, that he was threatened with restrictions on his access to the law library in

retaliation for the use of the grievance system, and that he had inadequate access to civil

counsel.

When the court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, it provided very explicit

instructions about various problems in the complaint that had to be addressed in the amended

complaint. The amended complaint failed to cure several of the problems identified in the

order of dismissal with leave to amend. 

The most glaring problem is that the amended complaint fails to link any defendant by

name to any particular claim. The court had cautioned Hawkins that, for each claim, he had

to "identify the defendants who he proposes to hold liable on that claim and must allege what

each person did or failed to do to cause a violation of one or more of his constitutional rights. 

A plaintiff cannot lump together a number of unidentifiable persons as a group defendant. 

Allegations that unidentified members of a jail's staff acted inappropriately are insufficient to

hold any particular person liable." See Order Of Dismissal With Leave To Amend, p. 4. The

Case 3:03-cv-02360-SI Document 27 Filed 08/03/06 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

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

court also explained how to use Doe defendants could be used and identified the potential

bases of municipal liability. See id. at 3-4, 6. Hawkins fails to identify any particular

wrongdoer, fails to use Doe defendant designations for persons whose identities he did not

know, and fails to allege an adequate basis for municipal liability. 

The amended complaint also fails to state a claim for relief for retaliation in that no

injury or chilling effect is alleged. The court had cautioned Hawkins that he needed to

include such an allegation. See Order Of Dismissal With Leave To Amend, p. 3. 

The amended complaint also fails to state a claim for relief for denial of access to the

courts in that no "actual injury" is alleged. The court had cautioned Hawkins that he needed

to include such an allegation. See Order Of Dismissal With Leave To Amend, pp. 4-5.

The amended complaint also fails to state a claim for relief for any interference with

an attorney-client relationship because Hawkins' allegations are generalized and do not

indicate that any communication he ever had with an attorney was monitored. Hawkins has

no standing to complain about problems that other inmates encountered and may only assert

claims for relief based on injuries to himself. 

For the foregoing reasons, the amended complaint is dismissed for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted. Leave to amend will not be granted because it

would be futile: the court already gave Hawkins explicit directions about curing the

particular deficiencies identified in this order and he failed to cure them. The clerk shall

close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2006 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-02360-SI Document 27 Filed 08/03/06 Page 3 of 3