Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01627/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01627-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAVANCE MICKEY WILSON,

Plaintiff,

 v

MATTHEW CATE, et al,

Defendant(s). /

No C-10-1627 VRW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE

TO AMEND

Plaintiff, a condemned prisoner incarcerated at San

Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”), has filed a pro se complaint under 42

USC § 1983 against Matthew Cate, Secretary of the California

Department of Corrections (“CDCR”), and Robert K Wong, SQSP’s former

Acting Warden. Doc #1. In documents attached to the complaint,

plaintiff identifies various SQSP employees by name, and claims they

violated his First Amendment rights by participating in the illegal

confiscation of his book entitled “The Black Panthers.” Id. For

the reasons that follow, the complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND within thirty (30) days of this order. 

Case 3:10-cv-01627-JW Document 5 Filed 06/04/10 Page 1 of 6
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

I

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 USC § 1915A(a). 

The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint,

or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous,

malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

from such relief.” Id § 1915A(b). Pleadings filed by pro se

litigants, however, must be liberally construed. Balistreri v

Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F2d 696, 699 (9th Cir 1990).

To state a claim under 42 USC § 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. West v Atkins, 487 US 42, 48 (1988).

II

A

Regulations limiting prisoners’ access to publications or

other information are valid only if they are reasonably related to

legitimate penological interests. See Thornburgh v Abbott, 490 US

401, 413 (1989) (citing Turner v Safley, 482 US 78, 89 (1987)). The

Supreme Court recognized in Turner that imprisonment does not

automatically deprive a prisoner of certain important constitutional

protections, including those of the First Amendment. See Beard v

Case 3:10-cv-01627-JW Document 5 Filed 06/04/10 Page 2 of 6
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

Banks, 548 US 521, 527 (2006). But at the same time the

Constitution sometimes permits greater restriction of such rights in

a prison than it would allow elsewhere. Id at 527–30. Courts owe

“substantial deference to the professional judgment of prison

administrators.” Overton v Bazzetta, 539 US 126, 132 (2003). 

Turner reconciled these seemingly competing principles by

establishing that restrictive prison regulations are permissible if

they are “reasonably related” to legitimate penological interests,

and are not an “exaggerated response” to such objectives. Turner,

482 US at 87. 

Liberally construed, plaintiff’s allegations regarding the

confiscation of his book on the Black Panther Party appear to state

a cognizable 42 USC § 1983 claim for a violation of his First

Amendment rights. But as set forth below, the action cannot proceed

until plaintiff corrects certain deficiencies in his complaint. 

B

Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under

42 USC § 1983 if the plaintiff can show that the defendant

proximately caused the deprivation of a federally-protected right. 

See Leer v Murphy, 844 F2d 628, 634 (9th Cir 1988); Harris v City of

Roseburg, 664 F2d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir 1981). A person deprives

another of a constitutional right within the meaning of 42 USC §

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

Case 3:10-cv-01627-JW Document 5 Filed 06/04/10 Page 3 of 6
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

complains. See Leer, 844 F2d at 633. It is well-established,

however, that there is no respondeat superior liability under 42 USC

§ 1983, ie, there is no liability simply because one is responsible

for the actions or omissions of another. See Taylor v List, 880 F2d

1040, 1045 (9th Cir 1989). 

Even at the pleading stage, “[a] plaintiff must allege

facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an individual was

personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights.” Barren

v Harrington, 152 F3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir 1998). Although the

federal rules require brevity in pleading, a complaint must be

sufficient to give the defendants “fair notice” of the claim and the

“grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson v Pardus, 551 US 89, 93

(2007) (citations omitted). 

In his complaint plaintiff names only CDCR Secretary

Matthew Cate and former SQSP Acting Warden Robert K Wong as

defendants — individuals who, judging from the documents attached to

the complaint, appear to be named based solely on the theory of

respondeat superior. See Doc #1 at 1 & 2–3. Although various SQSP

officials are mentioned in documents attached to the complaint, see,

for example, id at 2, plaintiff does not name them as defendants nor

does he clearly identify how they proximately caused the deprivation

of a federally-protected right. See Leer, 844 F2d at 634; Harris,

664 F2d at 1125. As the action now stands, the court cannot easily

determine which of the defendants mentioned in the documents

attached to plaintiff’s complaint violated his federally-protected

rights. The complaint, therefore, will be DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO

Case 3:10-cv-01627-JW Document 5 Filed 06/04/10 Page 4 of 6
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

AMEND within thirty (30) days of this order. See Lopez v Smith, 203

F3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir 2000) (en banc) (district courts must

afford pro se prisoner litigants an opportunity to amend to correct

any deficiency in their complaints); FRCP 15(a)(2) (district courts

“should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires”).

III

Good cause appearing, the complaint is DISMISSED WITH

LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT containing all related claims

against all defendants that plaintiff wishes to proceed against in

this action. The pleading must be simple, concise and direct and

must state clearly and succinctly how each and every defendant is

alleged to have violated plaintiff’s federally-protected rights. 

The pleading must include the caption and civil case number used in

this order and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. 

Failure to file a proper amended complaint within thirty (30) days

of this order will result in the dismissal of this action. 

Plaintiff is advised that the first amended complaint will

supersede the original complaint and all other pleadings. Claims

and defendants not included in the first amended complaint will not

be considered by the court. See King v Atiyeh, 814 F2d 565, 567

(9th Cir 1987).

//

//

//

//

Case 3:10-cv-01627-JW Document 5 Filed 06/04/10 Page 5 of 6
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

CDCR Secretary Matthew Cate and former Acting Warden

Robert K Wong are DISMISSED as defendants under the authority of 28

USC § 1915A(b) because they are sued only in their capacity as

supervisors. See Taylor, 880 F2d at 1045. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

G:\PRO-SE\VRW\CR.10\Wilson-10-1627-dwlta.wpd

Case 3:10-cv-01627-JW Document 5 Filed 06/04/10 Page 6 of 6