Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02448/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02448-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MONTE HANEY, 

Plaintiff, 

 v.

MICHAEL YUEN; ROSSALY E.

DELAVEGA,

Defendants. /

No. C 15-2448 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

This is a pro se civil rights complaint filed by a California prisoner proceeding pro se

under 42 U.S.C. 1983, against two clerks in the San Francisco County Superior Court, whom he

claims failed to file his tort complaint. Plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in

a separate order. For the reasons discussed below, the complaint is DISMISSED.

DISCUSSION

A. 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

which 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). 

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

Case 3:15-cv-02448-WHA Document 4 Filed 06/10/15 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

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. Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901

F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

B. LEGAL CLAIMS 

Plaintiff alleges that he sent a tort complaint to the San Francisco County Superior

Court. Defendants, clerk’s office officials, sent plaintiff summons, fee waiver, and civil case

forms and instructed plaintiff to complete them. Plaintiff alleges that he completed the forms

and sent them to the court, but he did not hear back. A month later, he wrote to defendant Yuen

(the Clerk of Court), but he has not received a response or his original complaint. 

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

343, 350 (1996). The right of access to the courts is limited to providing prisoners with the

capabilities to attack their convictions or sentences directly or collaterally and to file Section

1983 claims challenging the conditions of their confinement. Id. at 355. “Impairment of any

other litigating capacity is simply one of the incidental (and perfectly constitutional)

consequences of conviction and incarceration.” Ibid. The right of access to the courts does not

extend to plaintiff’s pursuing a state tort complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s allegations, if true,

do not amount to a violation of his constitutional rights and therefore do not state a cognizable

claim for relief under Section 1983. Plaintiff may be able to pursue his claims in the state

courts, including the state appellate courts if necessary, but not in a federal civil rights

complaint.

 Plaintiff asserts claims under the First Amendment and the federal right to due process,

but these rights are only implicated by defendants’ conduct to the extent that plaintiff has a

Case 3:15-cv-02448-WHA Document 4 Filed 06/10/15 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

limited right of access to the courts. Plaintiff also makes state law claims, which are not

cognizable under Section 1983. Finally, his claims under federal criminal law are not

cognizable because those laws do not create a private cause of action. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set out above, this action is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable

claim for relief. 

The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 9, 2015 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:15-cv-02448-WHA Document 4 Filed 06/10/15 Page 3 of 3