Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01582/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01582-1/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Mike Starrett is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. 

I.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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

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 “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that “seeks 

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, 

MIKE STARRETT,

 Plaintiff,

v.

MARGARET MIMMS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01582-SAB (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO STATE 

A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF

[ECF No. 1]

Case 1:15-cv-01582-AWI-SAB Document 8 Filed 02/02/16 Page 1 of 5
2

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

do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must demonstrate that each named defendant personally 

participated in the deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-677; Simmons v. Navajo County, 

Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-1021 (9th Cir. 2010). 

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

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, but the pleading standard is now 

higher, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted), and 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 Serv., 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.

II.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee housed at the Fresno County Jail, and brings this action against 

Sheriff Margaret Mimms, Captain Vega. Lieutenant Duren, Corporal Campbell, Officer Dar, and 

Program Manger Michelle Lefors for censorship of his outgoing legal mail. 

On August 10, 2015, and on occasion before and after, Defendant Corporal Campbell read 

attorney-client privileged correspondence addressed to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), 

the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, and attorney Paul Starrett. 

On September 23, 2015, and on occasions before and after this date, Defendant Officer Dar 

censored mail addressed to attorney Paul Starrett. 

Defendants have authorized censoring and reading attorney-client privilege mail through the 

official policies of the jail. 

///

///

///

Case 1:15-cv-01582-AWI-SAB Document 8 Filed 02/02/16 Page 2 of 5
3

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

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Section 1983 Linkage

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff‟s constitutional or other 

federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 

(9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); Jones v. 

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). “Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, 

but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.” Crowley v. Nevada 

ex rel. Nevada Sec‟y of State, 678 F.3d 730, 734 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 

386, 393-94 (1989)) (internal quotation marks omitted). To state a claim, Plaintiff must allege facts 

demonstrating the existence of a link, or causal connection, between each defendant‟s actions or 

omissions and a violation of his federal rights. Lemire v. California Dep‟t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 

F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2013); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Liability may not be imposed under a theory of respondeat superior, and some causal 

connection between the conduct of each named defendant and the violation at issue must exist. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 676-77; Lemire v. California Dep‟t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 

2013); Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 915-16 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc); Starr v. Baca, 652 

F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Although Plaintiff names Sheriff Margaret Mimms, Captain Vega, Lieutenant Duren, and 

Program Manager Michelle Lefors as Defendants, Plaintiff does not link any of these individuals to 

any affirmative action or omission giving rise to a claim for relief. 

B. First Amendment

Prisoners have “a First Amendment right to send and receive mail.” Witherow v. Paff, 52 F.3d 

264, 265 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). Censorship of outgoing prisoner mail is justified if the 

following criteria are met: (1) the regulation furthers “an important or substantial government interest 

unrelated to the suppression of expression” and (2) “the limitation on First Amendment freedoms must 

be no greater than is necessary or essential to the protection of the particular governmental interest 

involved.” Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 413 (1974) (overturned by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 

Case 1:15-cv-01582-AWI-SAB Document 8 Filed 02/02/16 Page 3 of 5
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

490 U.S. 401, 413-14 (1989) only as test relates to incoming mail - Turner test applies to incoming 

mail). 

 Plaintiff has not presented sufficient facts to establish that his First Amendment rights have 

been violated with regard to sending mail. Plaintiff cites to two unrelated incidents in which he claims 

his constitutional rights were violated. Isolated instances of mail censoring do not give rise to a First 

Amendment violation. See Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957, 961 (9th Cir. 1999); see also Davis v. 

Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 351 (2d Cir. 2003) (isolated incident of mail tampering usually insufficient to 

state claim); Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 431 (8th Cir. 1997); Smith v. Maschner, 899 F.2d 940, 

944 (10th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff does not indicate the content of the “legal” mail he sent, and the extent 

to which it was reviewed by Defendants based on an improper motive. Indeed, mail sent to the United 

States District Court and the ACLU is not “legal” mail protected by the attorney-client privilege. In 

addition, Plaintiff does not provide sufficient factual details regarding any alleged mailroom policy of 

the jail dealing with censoring outgoing mail to allow the Court to make a determination of whether 

such policy infringes upon Plaintiff‟s rights under the First Amendment. Raising the mere possibility 

that Defendants violated Plaintiff‟s rights is not enough to state a claim. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 678. The 

Court will grant Plaintiff leave to amend. In order to state a claim, Plaintiff must allege facts that 

Defendants tampered with his mail without a reasonable relation to a legitimate penological interest. 

The amended complaint should set forth sufficient facts to demonstrate the contents of Plaintiff‟s mail, 

what if any reasons were given, and how Plaintiff is aware of such facts. In addition, Plaintiff must 

demonstrate that the tampering with his mail was not an isolate occurrence, and must provide 

sufficient factual content of the mail policy which is alleged to be in violation of Plaintiff‟s 

constitutional rights. 

IV.

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 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. 

Case 1:15-cv-01582-AWI-SAB Document 8 Filed 02/02/16 Page 4 of 5
5

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

2007) (no “buckshot” complaints). 

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

named 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 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 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.

 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk‟s Office shall send Plaintiff an amended civil rights complaint form;

2. Plaintiff‟s complaint, filed October 16, 2015, is dismissed for failure to state a claim;

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

amended complaint; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this action 

will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 1, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01582-AWI-SAB Document 8 Filed 02/02/16 Page 5 of 5