Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01511/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01511-1/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

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZANE HUBBARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

CORCORAN STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-01511-AWI-MJS

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(ECF NO. 9)

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN 

THIRTY (30) DAYS

SCREENING ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Zane Hubbard, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 9, 2013. (ECF 

No. 1.) On February 4, 2014, Plaintiff’s Complaint was screened and dismissed, with 

leave to amend, for failure to state a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) is now before the Court for screening.

II. 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. 

Case 1:13-cv-01511-AWI-MJS Document 10 Filed 05/27/14 Page 1 of 9
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

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has 

raised claims that are legally “frivolous, malicious,” or 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). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion 

thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court 

determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may 

be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

III. SUMMARY OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

The First Amended Complaint identifies the following Defendants: (1) Hirachetta; 

(2) Chavez; (3) R. Godwin; (4) C. Gipson, Warden; and (5) Banks-Graves, CCI.

Plaintiff alleges the following:

Defendants Hirachetta and Chavez have opened Plaintiff’s mail marked 

“Confidential Legal Mail” and shared the contents with other inmates on multiple 

occasions. Defendant Banks-Graves retained legal letters in Plaintiff’s central file and 

refused to provide copies to Plaintiff. Plaintiff never received a notice for his 

resentencing hearing. Plaintiff is indigent and therefore entitled to free postage, yet 

some of his mail is returned for lack of postage. Defendant Gipson is the custodial 

person of interest and R. Godwin is the Mailroom Captain. (Compl. at 3.)

Plaintiff assets First and Eighth Amendment violations. The Court will address 

Plaintiff’s claims below.

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Section 1983

Section 1983 “provides a cause of action for the ‘deprivation of any rights, 

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws’ of the United States.” 

Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass’n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). 

Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for 

vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 

(1989).

Case 1:13-cv-01511-AWI-MJS Document 10 Filed 05/27/14 Page 2 of 9
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

To state a claim under Section 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 (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 

color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda 

Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).

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, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 

1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). 

Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is 

plausible on its face.’” Id. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere possibility 

that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are accepted as 

true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 1949-50.

B. Section 1983 Linkage Requirement

Under § 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally 

participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th 

Cir. 2002). This requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a 

plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 

F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting 

this plausibility standard. Id.

The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 

actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by the 

plaintiff. See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). 

Government officials may not be held liable for the actions of their subordinates under a 

theory of respondeat superior. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1948. Since a government official 

cannot be held liable under a theory of vicarious liability in § 1983 actions, Plaintiff must 

Case 1:13-cv-01511-AWI-MJS Document 10 Filed 05/27/14 Page 3 of 9
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

plead sufficient facts showing that the official has violated the Constitution through his 

own individual actions. Id. at 1948. In other words, to state a claim for relief under § 

1983, Plaintiff must link each named defendant with some affirmative act or omission 

that demonstrates a violation of Plaintiff's federal rights.

The Complaint names Gipson and Godwin as Defendants but fails to explain how 

either official violated Plaintiff’s rights. Defendant Gipson is identified as a “custodial 

person of interest”, but there is no description of any wrongful conduct by him. 

Defendant Godwin is identified as “the Mailroom Captain responsible [for] witholding 

legal mail and personal mail, obstructing [Plaintiff’s] First Amendment rights.” (Compl. at 

3.) The Complaint offers no further detail or any description of what Gipson did to 

obstruct Plainitff’s rights. Plaintiff cannot state a cognizable claim against a defendant 

without setting forth specific facts as to the conduct that proximately caused a violation of 

his rights. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). The mere fact that a 

defendant may have supervised the individuals responsible for a violation is not enough. 

The Defendants may only be held liable in a supervisory capacity if they “participated in 

or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” 

Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989).

Plaintiff has failed to link Defendants Gipson and Godwin to the violations alleged. 

The Court will provide an opportunity to amend. To state a cognizable claim, Plaintiff 

must demonstrate that the Defendants personally took some action that violated 

Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

C. First Amendment

1. Tampered Mail

While prisoners have a First Amendment right to send and receive mail, Witherow 

v. Paff, 52 F.3d 264, 265 (9th Cir. 1995) (quotation marks omitted), the right to receive 

mail is subject to substantial limitation and a regulation or policy infringing on the right

Case 1:13-cv-01511-AWI-MJS Document 10 Filed 05/27/14 Page 4 of 9
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

will be upheld if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests, Prison Legal 

News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692, 699 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 

89 (1987)).

The amended complaint alleges Defendants Hirachetta and Chavez opened 

Plaintiff’s “Confidential Legal Mail” and shared the contents with other inmates on 

multiple occasions. Defendant Banks-Graves allegedly retained legal letters in Plaintiff’s 

central file and refused to provide copies to Plaintiff.

The mere fact that prison officials open and conduct a visual inspection of a 

prisoner’s legal correspondence does not state a claim for violation of a prisoner’s 

constitutional rights. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 576-77 (1974). Prison 

officials may, consistent with the First Amendment, open mail from attorneys in the 

presence of the prisoner for visual inspection. See Id.; Sherman v. MacDougall, 656 

F.2d 527, 528 (9th Cir. 1981). In Wolff, the Supreme Court noted that inspecting mail 

from attorneys in the presence of the inmate did all, and perhaps even more, than the 

Constitution requires. Id. at 577. The issue of whether or not prison officials may also, 

consistent with the First Amendment, open and visually inspect mail from attorneys 

outside the presence of the prisoner has not been decided by the Supreme Court or by 

the Ninth Circuit.

Defendants Hirachetta and Chavez allegedly shared the contents of Plaintiff’s 

mail with other inmates. Defendant Banks-Graves allegedly kept legal letters from 

Plaintiff. The Defendants allegedly acted with “cruel intentions” and their conduct was 

not rationally related to a legitimate government interest. These allegations suggest the 

possibility of a First Amendment claim. See Prison Legal News, 397 F.3d at 699. 

However, there is insufficient information about when, where, how, and why the events 

occurred and why Plainitff believes Defendants are responsible for them.

Raising the mere possibility that the Defendants violated Plainitff’s rights is not 

enough to state a claim. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1949-50. The Court will grant Plaintiff leave to

Case 1:13-cv-01511-AWI-MJS Document 10 Filed 05/27/14 Page 5 of 9
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

6

amend. To state a claim Plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating that Defendants

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

The amended complaint should explain how exactly Plaintiff’s mail was tampered with, 

when, where, who was responsible, what if any reasons were given, and how Plaitniff is 

aware of these facts. Plaintiff must also demonstrate that the tampering was not an 

isolated occurrence. Limited incidents of mail interference or tampering will not support 

a claim under section 1983 for violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights. See Davis v. 

Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 351 (2d. Cir. 2003); Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 431 (8th 

Cir. 1997); Smith v. Maschner, 899 F.2d 940, 944 (10th Cir.1990).

2. Indigent Stamps

Plaintiff alleges he is indigent and therefore entitled to free postage; nevertheless,

some of his mail is returned for lack of postage.

Plaintiff has a constitutional right of access to the courts, and prison officials may 

not actively interfere with his right to litigate. Silva v. Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101–02 

(9th Cir. 2011). Prisoners also enjoy some degree of First Amendment rights in their 

legal correspondence and must be provided with postage stamps at state expense to 

mail legal documents. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 824–25 (1977). However, to 

state a viable claim for relief, Plaintiff must allege he suffered an actual injury, i.e., 

prejudice with respect to contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to meet 

a filing deadline or present a non-frivolous claim. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349 

(1996). Delays in providing legal materials or assistance which result in prejudice are 

“not of constitutional significance” if the delay is reasonably related to legitimate 

penological purposes. Id. at 362.

Plaintiff has not alleged any facts which support a claim that he has suffered an 

actual injury. To state a viable claim for relief, Plaintiff must show that he suffered 

“actual prejudice to contemplated or existing litigation.” Nevada Dep't of Corr. v. Greene, 

648 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir.2011) (citing Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348) (internal quotation 

marks omitted).

Case 1:13-cv-01511-AWI-MJS Document 10 Filed 05/27/14 Page 6 of 9
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

7

D. Eighth Amendment

The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment 

protects prisoners not only from inhumane methods of punishment but also from 

inhumane conditions of confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th 

Cir. 2006) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 1970 (1994) and Rhodes v. 

Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981)) (quotation marks omitted). While conditions of 

confinement may be, and often are, restrictive and harsh, they must not involve the 

wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain. Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (citing Rhodes, 

452 U.S. at 347) (quotation marks omitted). Thus, conditions which are devoid of 

legitimate penological purpose or contrary to evolving standards of decency that mark 

the progress of a maturing society violate the Eighth Amendment. Morgan, 465 F.3d at 

1045 (quotation marks and citations omitted); Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 737 (2002); 

Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 346.

Prison officials have a duty to ensure that prisoners are provided adequate 

shelter, food, clothing, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety, Johnson v. Lewis, 

217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 2000) (quotation marks and citations omitted), but not every 

injury that a prisoner sustains while in prison represents a constitutional violation, 

Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (quotation marks omitted). To maintain an Eighth 

Amendment claim, a prisoner must show that prison officials were deliberately indifferent 

to a substantial risk of harm to his health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847.

Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights but 

alleges no facts implicating the Eighth Amendment. Should Plaintiff choose to amend 

his pleading and include an Eighth Amendment claim, he must fully explain its basis with 

respect to the factual allegations summarized above.

V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint does not state a claim for relief. The Court 

will grant Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 

1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). If Plaintiff opts to amend, he must demonstrate that the 

Case 1:13-cv-01511-AWI-MJS Document 10 Filed 05/27/14 Page 7 of 9
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

8

alleged acts resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 

1948-49. Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state a claim that is 

plausible on its face.’” Id. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (2007)). Plaintiff 

must also demonstrate that each named Defendant personally participated in a 

deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).

Plaintiff should note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend, it 

is not for the purposes of adding new claims. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th 

Cir. 2007). Plaintiff should carefully read this Screening Order and focus his efforts on 

curing the deficiencies set forth above.

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general 

rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 

F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint 

no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an 

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be 

sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “Second

Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed 

under penalty of perjury. Plaintiff's amended complaint should be brief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

8(a). 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).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff (1) a blank civil rights complaint form 

and (2) a copy of his First Amended Complaint, filed February 28, 2014;

2. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted;

3. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days; and

Case 1:13-cv-01511-AWI-MJS Document 10 Filed 05/27/14 Page 8 of 9
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

9

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

the Court will recommend that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state 

a claim and failure to comply with a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01511-AWI-MJS Document 10 Filed 05/27/14 Page 9 of 9