Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03502/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03502-2/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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motions for Appointment of Counsel; Denying Motions to Attach Evidence; Order of

Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Bennett502dwltamisc 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIO K. BENNETT,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-3502 JF (PR)

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR

APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL; DENYING

MOTIONS TO ATTACH

EVIDENCE; ORDER OF

DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE

TO AMEND

(Docket Nos. 15, 22, 30, 33, 37,

39)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”) officials and the Director

of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Plaintiff filed an

amended complaint, which contains supporting documentation of his prison

administrative appeal, but no claims or allegations against Defendants. Therefore, the

Court will review Plaintiff’s claims in his original complaint. Plaintiff has filed three

motions for appointment of counsel, two motions to attach evidence and a motion to

attach legal mail. The Court will DENY Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel

(docket nos. 15, 22, 39) without prejudice. The Court will DENY Plaintiff’s motions to

**Original filed 3/23/07**

Case 5:05-cv-03502-JF Document 41 Filed 03/23/07 Page 1 of 8
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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motions for Appointment of Counsel; Denying Motions to Attach Evidence; Order of

Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Bennett502dwltamisc 2

attach evidence and legal mail (docket nos. 30, 33, 37) and dismiss the original complaint

and the amended complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff may include supporting

documentation of any exhibits with his second amended complaint. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges that PBSP employees searched his cell and asked him if he knew

an individual named Karen Diane Figgins. They told Plaintiff not to write to Ms. Figgins,

and he replied that he did not write to her. Defendants did not show Plaintiff any letters,

or proof, that he had written to Ms. Figgins. Several days later, Plaintiff was told that he

was being placed on mail monitoring status and that Defendant Lieutenant Wood would

review Plaintiff’s outgoing mail. Plaintiff alleges that his mail is delayed because he has

not received any mail in three weeks and that his family has not received his outgoing

mail. Plaintiff names the following Defendants in his complaint: PBSP Warden Kirkland,

PBSP Captain Patten, PBSP Lieutenant Wood, PBSP Correctional Officer Haley, and

Director of Corrections and Rehabilitation Jeanne Woodford. Plaintiff seeks the

following relief: injunctive relief in firing the PBSP Defendants and money damages for

pain and suffering in the amount of $5 million dollars. 

DISCUSSION 

A. The Merits

1. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

seek 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. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v.

Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

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

Case 5:05-cv-03502-JF Document 41 Filed 03/23/07 Page 2 of 8
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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motions for Appointment of Counsel; Denying Motions to Attach Evidence; Order of

Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Bennett502dwltamisc 3

acting under the color of state law committed a violation of a right secured by the

Constitution or laws of the United States. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under section 1983 if the

plaintiff can show that the defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a federally

protected right. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988); Harris v. City of

Roseburg, 664 F.2d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 1981). A person deprives another of a

constitutional right within the meaning of section 1983 if he does an affirmative act,

participates in another’s affirmative act or omits to perform an act which he is legally

required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains. See Leer, 844

F.2d at 633; Robins v. Meecham, 60 F.3d 1436, 1442 (9th Cir. 1995). 

2. Plaintiff’s Claim

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have placed him on mail monitoring, without

justification, resulting in the delay of his outgoing and incoming mail. 

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

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

Turner standard applies to regulations and practices concerning all correspondence

between prisoners and to regulations concerning incoming mail received by prisoners

from non-prisoners. See Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 413. In the case of outgoing

correspondence from prisoners to non-prisoners, however, an exception to the Turner

standard applies. Because outgoing correspondence from prisoners does not, by its very

nature, pose a serious threat to internal prison order and security, there must be a closer fit

between any regulation or practice affecting such correspondence and the purpose it

purports to serve. See id. at 411-12. Censorship in such instances is justified only if

(1) the regulation or practice in question furthers one or more of the substantial

Case 5:05-cv-03502-JF Document 41 Filed 03/23/07 Page 3 of 8
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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motions for Appointment of Counsel; Denying Motions to Attach Evidence; Order of

Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Bennett502dwltamisc 4

governmental interests of security, order and rehabilitation, and (2) the limitation on First

Amendment freedoms is no greater than necessary to further the particular government

interest involved. See Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 413 (1974), overruled on

other grounds, Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 413-14 (1989); see, e.g., Witherow,

52 F.3d at 265-66 (regulation requiring visual inspection of outgoing mail from inmates

to certain public officials closely related to legitimate penological interest of preventing

prisoners from disseminating harmful or offensive materials and avoids unnecessary

intrusion) (emphasis added).

Plaintiff claims that his outgoing mail was rerouted to Defendant Wood in order to

monitor his mail. However, Plaintiff fails to set forth specific facts showing how the

remaining Defendants proximately caused a constitutional deprivation. For a claim to be

cognizable, a Plaintiff must “set forth specific facts as to each individual defendant’s

deprivation of protected rights.” Leer, 844 F.2d at 634. But here, Plaintiff alleges facts

without explaining the actions of each Defendant involved. As such, Plaintiff fails to link

all named Defendants to his claim. Accordingly, the complaint does not state a

cognizable claim against the remaining Defendants Kirkland, Patten, Haley and

Woodford. The Court will dismiss the complaint and amended complaint with leave to

amend. 

Plaintiff must allege facts supporting each claim against each individual Defendant 

separately in his second amended complaint showing his entitlement to relief from each

Defendant. Plaintiff should list the constitutional right he has, describe what each

Defendant did or failed to do, and describe how each Defendant’s acts or omissions

caused him injury. He should not refer to the defendants as a group, i.e., “the

defendants;” rather, he should identify each involved Defendant by name and link each of

them to a specific claim by explaining what each defendant did or failed to do that caused

a violation of his constitutional rights. 

As to Plaintiff’s claim against PBSP Warden Kirkland and Director of the

Case 5:05-cv-03502-JF Document 41 Filed 03/23/07 Page 4 of 8
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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motions for Appointment of Counsel; Denying Motions to Attach Evidence; Order of

Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Bennett502dwltamisc 5

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Jeanne Woodford, Plaintiff is cautioned

that there is no respondeat superior liability under Section 1983, i.e. no liability under the

theory that one is responsible for the actions or omissions of an employee. Liability

under Section 1983 arises only upon a showing of personal participation by the defendant. 

Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). A supervisor may be liable under

section 1983 upon a showing of (1) personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation

or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the

constitutional violation. Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir.

1991) (en banc) (citation omitted). 

Plaintiff will be given leave to amend the complaint to cure this deficiency. 

Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint within

thirty days of the date this order is filed to include sufficient facts to support his claim

against each Defendant and the alleged constitutional violation he suffered.

B. Motions for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff has filed three motions for appointment of counsel. As stated in the

Court’s previous order denying appointment of counsel, there is no constitutional right to

counsel in a civil case. Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). 28

U.S.C. § 1915 confers on a district court only the power to “request” that counsel

represent a litigant who is proceeding in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). This

does not give the courts the power to make “coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard

v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989). 

The court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant under § 1915 only in

“exceptional circumstances,” the determination of which requires an evaluation of both

(1) the likelihood of success on the merits and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate

his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Rand v.

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017

(9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Both of

Case 5:05-cv-03502-JF Document 41 Filed 03/23/07 Page 5 of 8
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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motions for Appointment of Counsel; Denying Motions to Attach Evidence; Order of

Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Bennett502dwltamisc 6

these factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision on a request for counsel

under § 1915. See id. Neither the need for discovery, nor the fact that the pro se litigant

would be better served with the assistance of counsel, necessarily qualify the issues

involved as complex. See Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (where plaintiff’s pursuit of discovery

was comprehensive and focused and his papers were generally articulate and organized,

district court did not abuse discretion in denying request for counsel). 

The Court concludes that appointment of counsel is not necessary at this time. 

The Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend and has yet to review

the merits of Plaintiff’s claims in his second amended complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

motions for appointment of counsel (docket nos. 15, 22, 39) are DENIED without

prejudice.

C. Motions to Attach Evidence and Legal Mail

Plaintiff has filed two motions to attach evidence and exhibits, a motion to attach

legal mail and also filed several exhibits in this action. The Court notes that Plaintiff

must include all of his exhibits and attachments with his second amended complaint. 

Plaintiff may not send in attachments and documents separately to be included with his

second amended complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions (docket nos. 30, 33, 37) are

DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff may include any supporting exhibits or documents

with his second amended complaint as set forth below. 

 CONCLUSION 

1. Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel (docket nos. 15, 22, 39) are 

DENIED without prejudice.

2. Plaintiff’s motions to attach evidence and legal mail (docket nos. 30, 33,

37) are DENIED without prejudice.

3. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Kirkland, Patten, Haley and 

Woodford are DISMISSED with leave to amend, as indicated above, within thirty days

from the date this order is filed. The second amended complaint must include the caption

Case 5:05-cv-03502-JF Document 41 Filed 03/23/07 Page 6 of 8
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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motions for Appointment of Counsel; Denying Motions to Attach Evidence; Order of

Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Bennett502dwltamisc 7

and civil case number used in this order (05-3502 JF (PR)) and the words SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely

replaces the original complaint, Plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to

present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct.

321 (1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the original complaint or

amended complaint, such as supporting documentation of the prison appeal process, by

reference. Plaintiff must include all of his claims (including the one cognizable claim

against Defendant Wood) and name all Defendants in the amended complaint. Failure to

file an amended complaint within the designated time will result in the Court

proceeding with the original complaint and the one cognizable claim against

Defendant Wood. 

Plaintiff filed a notice with the Court stating that the Defendants no longer are

employed at PBSP. Plaintiff shall provide identifying information for the Defendants

(new address, full name, etc.) in his second amended complaint. 

 4. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the 

Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed

“Notice of Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely

fashion or ask for an extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in the

dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: JEREMY FOGEL 

 United States District Judge

3/23/07

Case 5:05-cv-03502-JF Document 41 Filed 03/23/07 Page 7 of 8
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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motions for Appointment of Counsel; Denying Motions to Attach Evidence; Order of

Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Bennett502dwltamisc 8

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Mario K. Bennett

V-23447

Pelican Bay State Prison

P.O. Box 7500

Crescent City, CA 95531-7500

Case 5:05-cv-03502-JF Document 41 Filed 03/23/07 Page 8 of 8