Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01386/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01386-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GONZALO ARAMBULA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

M.S. EVANS, Warden, ET AL.,

Defendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-1386 CW (PR)

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT

MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT,

DISMISSING ACTION, AND

DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS

STATUS

(Docket nos. 2, 4)

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Gonzalo Arambula is a prisoner of the State of

California who is incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison

(SVSP). He has filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 and seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Venue is

proper in this Court because the injuries complained of occurred in

Monterey County, which is located within the Northern District of

California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391; 28 U.S.C. § 84.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any

case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or

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

In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and

dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from

a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).

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

allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the

Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and 

Case 4:05-cv-01386-CW Document 5 Filed 01/17/06 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

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 1A plaintiff may amend his complaint once as a matter of course at

any time before a responsive pleading is served. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

15(a). Accordingly, his motion is DENIED as moot.

2

(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). "'[A] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to

state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can

prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle

him to relief.'" Terracom v. Valley National Bank, 49 F.3d 555, 558

(9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46

(1957)). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri

v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).

DISCUSSION

In his complaint and "Motion for Amended Complaint"1 Plaintiff

alleges that in August, 2004 SVSP mail room staff purposefully

opened a piece of legal mail addressed to him from the State Board

of Control. Plaintiff pursued the matter through all three formal

levels of administrative review. At each level it was determined

that the piece of mail had not been identified as legal mail and

therefore prison staff was permitted to open it for inspection. 

The reviewers also found that if the mail had been incorrectly

identified as non-legal mail it was a mistake. In his amended

complaint Plaintiff charges SVSP Warden M.S. Evans with failing to

properly train staff in the handling of legal mail. Plaintiff

seeks damages of $10,000.

Prisoners enjoy a First Amendment right to send and receive

mail. See Witherow v. Paff, 52 F.3d 264, 265 (9th Cir. 1995)

(citing Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407 (1989)). A prison,

however, may adopt regulations or practices which impinge on a

Case 4:05-cv-01386-CW Document 5 Filed 01/17/06 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

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

prisoner's First Amendment rights as long as the regulations are

"reasonably related to legitimate penological interests." See

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). 

The inspection for contraband of non-legal mail does not

violate a prisoner's constitutional rights. See Witherow, 52 F.3d

at 265-66 (upholding inspection of outgoing mail); Smith v. Boyd,

945 F.2d 1041, 1043 (8th Cir. 1991) (upholding inspection of

incoming mail); Gaines v. Lane, 790 F.2d 1299, 1304 (7th Cir. 1986)

(upholding inspection of outgoing and incoming mail). Prison

officials also may institute procedures for inspecting legal mail,

for example, mail sent between attorneys and prisoners, see Wolff v.

McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 576-77 (1974) (incoming mail from

attorneys), and mail sent from prisoners to the courts, see Royse v.

Superior Court, 779 F.2d 573, 574-75 (9th Cir. 1986) (outgoing mail

to court). But the opening and inspecting of legal mail outside the

presence of the prisoner may have an impermissible chilling effect

on the constitutional right to petition the government. See O'Keefe

v. Van Boening, 82 F.3d 322, 325 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Laird v.

Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 11 (1972)). Mail from the courts, as contrasted

to mail from a prisoner's lawyer, is not legal mail. See Keenan v.

Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1094 (9th Cir. 1996), amended, 135 F.3d 1318

(9th Cir. 1998); see also Martin v. Brewer, 830 F.2d 76, 78 (7th

Cir. 1987) (with minute exceptions correspondence from a court to a

litigant is a public document). 

Isolated incidents of mail interference without any evidence of

improper motive or resulting interference with the right to counsel

or access to the courts do not give rise to a constitutional

violation. See Smith v. Maschner, 899 F.2d 940, 944 (10th Cir.

1990); Morgan v. Montanye, 516 F.2d 1367, 1370-71 (2d Cir. 1975) (no

Case 4:05-cv-01386-CW Document 5 Filed 01/17/06 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

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

4

claim where letter from prisoner's attorney opened out of prisoner's

presence in single instance), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 973 (1976);

Bach v. Illinois, 504 F.2d 1100, 1102 (7th Cir.) (isolated incident

of mail mishandling insufficient to state a claim under § 1983),

cert. denied, 418 U.S. 910 (1974); Lingo v. Boone, 402 F. Supp. 768,

773 (N.D. Cal. 1975) (an isolated incident of mail censorship or

interference due to prison officials' "honest error" does not

justify relief under § 1983).

According to Plaintiff's description of the piece of mail as a

letter from the State Board of Control the mail was not legal mail

and therefore could be inspected by mail room staff outside of the

presence of Plaintiff. Even if it was legal mail, however,

Plaintiff's allegations of an isolated incident of mail mishandling

fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Because

amendment would be futile, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 

1. The motion to amend the complaint is DENIED as moot. 

(Docket no. 6.)

2. The action is DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to

amend.

3. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. (Docket no.

2.)

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 1/12/06

 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-01386-CW Document 5 Filed 01/17/06 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

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

5

Case 4:05-cv-01386-CW Document 5 Filed 01/17/06 Page 5 of 5