Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04197/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04197-1/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINCENT PRICE MCCOWAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARD SEEBORG, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-04197-HSG (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH 

PARTIAL LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”), filed this pro se civil rights 

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 

in a separate order. For the reasons stated below, the complaint is dismissed with partial leave to 

amend.

BACKGROUND

 Plaintiff’s claims are difficult to understand but he appears to allege that United States

District Judge Richard Seeborg has impeded plaintiff’s access to the courts by dismissing an 

earlier action brought by plaintiff, No. C 15-3419 RS. A review of the earlier action shows that it 

was filed on July 24, 2015, and that same day, the Clerk notified plaintiff that he had not filed a 

complaint or an IFP application. The notices warned plaintiff that he must file the required 

documents within twenty-eight days or his action would be dismissed. The action was dismissed

on September 1, 2015 based on plaintiff’s failure to file an IFP application and complaint. 

In this action, plaintiff alleges that he did not receive the Clerk’s notices regarding the 

inadequacies in his filings in No. C 15-3419 RS until August 27, 2015. Plaintiff appears to allege 

that this delay was attributable to the omission of his prisoner identification number on his mailing 

Case 4:15-cv-04197-HSG Document 12 Filed 12/14/15 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

address, which caused the notices to be returned to the Court and later re-sent to plaintiff. In 

addition to Judge Seeborg, plaintiff names the former Clerk of the Court of the Northern District, 

Richard Wieking, and Deputy Clerk Corinne Lew as defendants. Finally, plaintiff names an 

“Officer Cardona” as a defendant but fails to identify who this defendant is and provides no facts 

whatsoever linking this defendant to plaintiff’s allegations of wrongdoing. 

DISCUSSION

A. 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. See 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 

(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 

Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the 

statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon 

which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although 

in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s 

obligation to provide the grounds of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and 

conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . 

Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint 

must proffer “enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 1974. 

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 (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).

Case 4:15-cv-04197-HSG Document 12 Filed 12/14/15 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

B. Legal Claims

1. Access to Courts Claim

Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 

343, 350 (1996); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). In Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166 

(1989), the Ninth Circuit divided such cases into two categories: (1) those which assert inadequate 

law libraries or alternative sources of legal knowledge sufficient to prepare a suit, and (2) all 

others. Id. at 1171. As to the second category, the court required proof of “actual injury” to state 

a claim. Id. The court did not require actual injury for the first category, id., but that part of the 

holding was overruled by Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350-55 (1996). In short, whether a 

prisoner’s claim is that a prison law library is inadequate or is that official action somehow 

blocked his access to the court, he or she must allege “actual injury.” 

“Actual injury” is defined as the prisoner being hindered in his efforts to pursue a nonfrivolous claim concerning his conviction or conditions of confinement. Id. at 354-55. 

“Impairment of any other litigating capacity is simply one of the incidental (and perfectly 

constitutional) consequences of conviction and incarceration.” Id. The right of access to the court 

is limited to the initiation of a court action. The state is not required to enable the prisoner to 

discover grievances or to litigate effectively once in court. Id. at 354.

Plaintiff does not allege actual injury under this standard. Moreover, it appears from a 

review of the docket in his earlier action that he cannot. Specifically, C 15-3419 RS was 

dismissed without prejudice to plaintiff moving to re-open the action after properly completing a 

complaint on a court-approved form and completing an IFP application. Plaintiff filed the 

required documents in C 15-3419 RS on September 8, 2015, and they are awaiting initial review 

before Judge Seeborg. Thus there is no indication that plaintiff’s ability to litigate that action has 

been compromised. For this reason, as well as those discussed below, the case will be dismissed 

without leave to amend as to defendants Seeborg, Wieking, and Lew.

2. Immunity

Further, federal judges and federal clerks of court are immune from the claims alleged 

here. Mullis v. United States Bankruptcy Court, 828 F.3d 1385, 1391-93 (9th Cir. 1987) 

Case 4:15-cv-04197-HSG Document 12 Filed 12/14/15 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(discussing distinction between Bivens actions against judges and clerks acting under color of 

federal law and Section 1983 actions against judges and clerks acting under color of state law; 

holding that federal judges and clerks of court are immune from both damages claims and 

injunctive relief claims). Given defendants’ immunity, no amendment could remedy this 

deficiency. For this additional reason the case will be dismissed without leave to amend as to 

defendants Seeborg, Wieking, and Lew.

3. Injury

As discussed above, plaintiff has suffered no injury. To extent he claims any injury other

than to the progress of his earlier case, it is psychological. The Prisoner Litigation Reform Act 

(“PLRA”) provides that prisoners may recover for mental or emotional injuries suffered while 

incarcerated only if they first show that they suffered a physical injury. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). 

Plaintiff has not alleged a physical injury, and it is clear from the nature of the claims that he could 

not. For this additional reason the case will be dismissed without leave to amend as to defendants 

Seeborg, Wieking, and Lew.

4. Defendant Cardona

As discussed above, plaintiff alleges no facts linking defendant Cardona to his claims. 

Leave to amend will be granted so that plaintiff may attempt to remedy this deficiency, if he can 

do so in good faith. In his amended complaint, plaintiff must “set forth specific facts” regarding 

what defendant Cardona did, or did not do, that violated his federal constitutional rights. Leer v. 

Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). Sweeping conclusory allegations will not suffice. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court orders as follows:

1. The claims against defendants Seeborg, Wieking, and Lew are DISMISSED

without leave to amend. The Clerk shall terminate these defendants from the docket in this action. 

2. If plaintiff believes he can allege a claim against defendant Cardona in good faith, 

plaintiff must file an AMENDED COMPLAINT within twenty-eight (28) days from the date this 

order is filed. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this 

order (C 15-4197 HSG (PR)) and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. 

Case 4:15-cv-04197-HSG Document 12 Filed 12/14/15 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the prior complaint by reference. Failure to file the 

amended complaint by the deadline will result in the dismissal of the action. The Clerk of the 

Court is directed to send plaintiff a blank civil rights form along with his copy of this order. 

Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. “[A] plaintiff 

waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in the amended 

complaint.” London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981). 

3. 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,” and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do 

so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

12/14/2015

Case 4:15-cv-04197-HSG Document 12 Filed 12/14/15 Page 5 of 5