Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02968/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02968-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

JAMES LEE MATTHEWS, AV5618, 

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

M. E. SPEARMAN, et al.,

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 15-2968 CRB (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Correctional Training Facility (CTF) in Soledad,

California, filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging denial of

meaningful access to the courts due to CTF officials’ failure to accommodate his

attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) which he claims has rendered

him “educationally handicapped.” Compl. (dkt. #6) at 3. Plaintiff seeks an order

compelling CTF officials to provide him and other ADHD prisoners “with the

assistance of a scribe, reader, [or] researcher in order to have meaningful access

to the courts.” Id.

Per order filed on August 24, 2015, the court dismissed plaintiff’s

complaint with leave to amend to allege a claim of denial of access to the courts,

if he could allege an actual injury to court access. The court explained that,

“[r]egardless of whether a prisoner’s denial of access to courts claim is based on

his right to affirmative assistance or his right to litigate without active

interference, he must allege: (1) a non-frivolous legal attack on his conviction,

sentence or conditions of confinement has been frustrated or impeded, and (2) he

has suffered an actual injury as a result. Aug. 24, 2015 Order (dkt. #14) at 3

Case 3:15-cv-02968-CRB Document 17 Filed 10/14/15 Page 1 of 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 2

(citations omitted). Although plaintiff’s assertion of denial of meaningful access

to the courts due to CTF officials’ failure to accommodate his ADHD suggests a

possible claim of denial of access to the courts based on a prisoner’s right to

affirmative assistance, 

plaintiff has not identified a specific inadequacy in the prison’s

legal access program or alleged an actual injury, “such as the

inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a claim,” [Lewis v.

Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348 (1996)], stemming from any inadequacy

in the prison’s legal access program. Compare Jones v. Blanas, 393

F.3d 918, 936 (9th Cir. 2004) (prisoner “did not allege injury, such

as inability to file a complaint or defend against a charge, stemming

from the restrictions on his access to the law library”) with Hebbe

v. Plier, 627 F.3d 338, 343 (9th Cir. 2010) (plaintiff alleged actual

injury because denying him law library access while on lockdown

prevented him from appealing his conviction). 

Aug. 24, 2015 Order at 3.

Plaintiff was given 28 days to amend and warned that “[f]ailure to file a

proper amended complaint within the designated time will result in the dismissal

of this action.” Id. at 4.

On September 3, 2015, plaintiff submitted various declarations from other

inmates at CTF. But more that 40 days have elapsed since the court gave him 28

days to amend and plaintiff still has not amended or sought an extension of time

to do so. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice.

The clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this order and close the

file. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Oct. 13, 2015 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.15\Matthews, J.15-2968.dismissal.wpd

Case 3:15-cv-02968-CRB Document 17 Filed 10/14/15 Page 2 of 2