Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00939/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00939-1/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

WILLIAM MEADOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON,

ET.AL.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-0939-OWW DLB-P

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

 

I. Screening Order

A. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on July 22, 2005. 

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 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). 

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

Case 1:05-cv-00939-OWW -DLB Document 8 Filed 05/01/06 Page 1 of 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

2

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467

U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citingConley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt

Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under this

standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg.

Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most

favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395

U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

B. Summary of Plaintiff’s Complaint

The events at issue in the instant action allegedly occurred at California Correctional

Institution, where plaintiff is incarcerated. Plaintiff names Pleasant Valley State Prison Mail Room

Staff, Warden Yates and Sergeant Corley as defendants. Plaintiff alleges that in March 4, 2004, he

received Legal Mail that had been opened outside of his presence in violation of the First, Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.

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); Mitchell v. Dupnick, 75 F.3d 517, 523 (9th Cir.

1996). Prison officials may, consistent with the First Amendment, open mail from attorneys in the

presence ofthe prisoner for visual inspection. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 576-7 (1974);

Sherman v. MacDougall, 656 F.2d 527, 528 (9th Cir. 1981). In Wolff v. McDonnell, 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. However, “[m]ail from the courts, as contrasted to mail from a prisoner’s lawyer, is not

legal mail.” Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1094 (9th Cir. 1996). “All correspondence from a court

to a litigant is a public document, which prison personnel could if they want inspect in the court’s

files.” Id. at 1094 (citing to Martin v. Brewer, 830 F.2d 76, 78 (7th Cir. 1987)). 

Case 1:05-cv-00939-OWW -DLB Document 8 Filed 05/01/06 Page 2 of 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

3

The documentation attached to plaintiff’s complaint indicates that the “legal mail” plaintiff

references in his complaint was mail from the Court of Appeal, and therefore it was permissible for

the mail room staff to open it outside of plaintiff’s presence.

Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under Section 1983 for the actions

of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant

holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional violation

must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v.

Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). To state a claim for

relief under Section 1983 based on a theory of supervisory liability, Plaintiff must allege some facts

that would support a claim that supervisoryDefendants either: personally participated in the alleged

deprivation of constitutional rights; knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them; or

promulgated or “implemented a policy so deficient that the policy ‘itself is a repudiation of

constitutional rights’ and is ‘the moving force of the constitutional violation.’” Hansen v. Black, 885

F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal citations omitted); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th

Cir. 1989). Although federal pleading standards are broad, some facts must be alleged to support

claims under section 1983. See Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168

(1993). 

Plaintiff has not alleged any facts indicating that defendant Warden Yates personally

participated in the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights; knew of the violations and failed to

act to prevent them; or promulgated or “implemented a policy so deficient that the policy ‘itself is

a repudiation of constitutional rights’ and is ‘the moving force of the constitutional violation.’”

Hansen v. Black at 646. Plaintiff’s allegationsthat Warden Yates denied his appeal are insufficient.

There is no constitutional right to an inmate appeals process. The Ninth Circuit has held that

Prisoners do not have a "separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure."

Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir.2003), citing Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

Cir.1988). The non-existence of, or the failure of prison officials to properly implement, an

administrative appeals process within the prison system does not raise constitutional concerns. Mann

v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.1988). See also, Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th

Case 1:05-cv-00939-OWW -DLB Document 8 Filed 05/01/06 Page 3 of 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

4

Cir.1993); Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728 (8th Cir.1991); Azeez v. DeRobertis, 568 F.Supp. 8, 10

(N.D.Ill.1982) ("[A prison] grievance procedure is a procedural right only, it does not confer any

substantive right upon the inmates. 

Finally, plaintiff has failed to link Sergeant Corley to any conduct whatsoever. In order to

state a claim for relief under section 1983, plaintiff must link each named defendant with some

affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of plaintiff’s federal rights.

In summary, the court finds that plaintiff’s complaint does not contain any claims upon which

relief may be granted. The court will provide plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended

complaint. Plaintiff is informed he must demonstrate in his complaint how the conditions

complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal rights. See

Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how each

named defendant is involved. There can be no liability unless there is some affirmative link or

connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S.

362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740,

743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Finally, plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 15-220 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

plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading 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.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state any claims

upon which relief may be granted;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

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, the court

Case 1:05-cv-00939-OWW -DLB Document 8 Filed 05/01/06 Page 4 of 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

5

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

claim upon which relief may be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 28, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00939-OWW -DLB Document 8 Filed 05/01/06 Page 5 of 5