Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01949/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01949-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

1 11cv1949 (BGS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE HERNANDEZ,

CDCR #K-86923, Civil No. 11cv1949 BTM (BGS)

Plaintiff, ORDER:

(1) DISMISSING DEFENDANT 

COBB; AND 

(2) DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL TO

EFFECT SERVICE OF FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT

PURSUANT TO 

FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3) 

& 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)

vs.

SESSION; JOHN DOE ONE;

R. COBB,

Defendants.

I. Procedural History

On August 24, 2011, Plaintiff, a state inmate currently incarcerated at the California

Rehabilitation Center in Norco, California, and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights Complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”)

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

This Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP, found that he had stated a claim as

to Defendants Session and John Doe One, but failed to state a claim against R. Cobb. See Dec.

9, 2011 Order at 4-5. Plaintiff was given the opportunity to file an Amended Complaint in order

to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court or proceed as to those claims that

Case 3:11-cv-01949-BTM-BGS Document 5 Filed 03/19/12 Page 1 of 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

2 11cv1949 (BGS)

survived screening. Id. at 4. Plaintiff chose to file an Amended Complaint which he did on

January 3, 2012.

II. SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b)

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) requires the Court to review Plaintiff’s

Amended Complaint sua sponte before service, and dismiss the entire action, or any part of his

Amended Complaint, if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from

defendants who are immune. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A.

While the Court has already found that Plaintiff’s claims against Session and John Doe

One survive screening, see Dec. 9, 2011 Order at 3 (ECF No. 3), the claims against Defendant

Cobb must be dismissed for failing to state a claim. In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff

continues to seek to hold Defendant Cobb liable for the manner in which he responded to

Plaintiff’s administrative grievances. As the Court previously informed Plaintiff, he cannot state

a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim arising from dissatisfaction with the inmate

administrative grievance process.

The Fourteenth Amendment provides that: “[n]o state shall ... deprive any person of life,

liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1. “The

requirements of procedural due process apply only to the deprivation of interests encompassed

by the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of liberty and property.” Board of Regents v. Roth,

408 U.S. 564, 569 (1972). State statutes and prison regulations may grant prisoners liberty or

property interests sufficient to invoke due process protection. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215,

223-27 (1976). To state a procedural due process claim, Plaintiff must allege: “(1) a liberty or

property interest protected by the Constitution; (2) a deprivation of the interest by the

government; [and] (3) lack of process.” Wright v. Riveland, 219 F.3d 905, 913 (9th Cir. 2000).

However, the Ninth Circuit has held that prisoners have no protected property interest in

an inmate grievance procedure arising directly from the Due Process Clause. See Ramirez v.

Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 869 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[I]nmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement

to a specific prison grievance procedure”) (citing Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.

1988) (finding that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment creates “no legitimate

Case 3:11-cv-01949-BTM-BGS Document 5 Filed 03/19/12 Page 2 of 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

3 11cv1949 (BGS)

claim of entitlement to a [prison] grievance procedure”))..

In addition, Plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to show that prison official

deprived him of a protected liberty interest by allegedly failing to respond to his prison

grievances in a satisfactory manner. While a liberty interest can arise from state law or prison

regulations, Meachum, 427 U.S. at 223-27, due process protections are implicated only if

Plaintiff alleges facts to show that Defendants: (1) restrained his freedom in a manner not

expected from his sentence, and (2) “impose[d] atypical and significant hardship on [him] in

relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995);

Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 827-28 (9th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff pleads nothing to suggest how

the allegedly inadequate review and consideration of his inmate grievances resulted in an

“atypical” and “significant hardship.” Sandin, 515 U.S. at 483-84.

Plaintiff also suggests that the actions of Defendant Cobb have interfered with his right

to access to the Courts. To establish a violation of the right to access to the courts, a prisoner

must allege facts sufficient to show that: (1) a nonfrivolous 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. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 353-55 (1996). An “actual injury”

is defined as “actual prejudice with respect to contemplated or existing litigation, such as the

inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a claim.” Id. at 348.

Here, Plaintiff has failed to alleged any actions with any particularity that have precluded

his pursuit of a non-frivolous direct or collateral attack upon either his criminal conviction or

sentence or the conditions of his current confinement. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 355 (right to

access to the courts protects only an inmate’s need and ability to “attack [his] sentence[], directly

or collaterally, and ... to challenge the conditions of [his] confinement.”); see also Christopher

v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002) (the non-frivolous nature of the “underlying cause of

action, whether anticipated or lost, is an element that must be described in the complaint, just

as much as allegations must describe the official acts frustrating the litigation.”). Moreover,

Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to show that he has been actually injured by any specific

defendant’s actions. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351. 

Case 3:11-cv-01949-BTM-BGS Document 5 Filed 03/19/12 Page 3 of 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

4 11cv1949 (BGS)

Plaintiff has not alleged that “a complaint he prepared was dismissed,” or that he was “so

stymied” by any individual defendant’s actions that “he was unable to even file a complaint,”

direct appeal or petition for writ of habeas corpus that was not “frivolous.” Lewis, 518 U.S. at

351; Christopher, 536 U.S. at 416 (“like any other element of an access claim[,] ... the predicate

claim [must] be described well enough to apply the ‘nonfrivolous’ test and to show that the

‘arguable’ nature of the underlying claim is more than hope.”). Therefore, Plaintiff’s access to

courts claims must be dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which section 1983 relief can

be granted.

Thus, all of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Cobb are dismissed for failing to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted. However, the Court finds that the claims in Plaintiff’s

Amended Complaint as to Defendants Session and John Doe One are sufficiently pleaded to

survive the sua sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). Therefore,

the Court will direct U.S. Marshal service on his behalf. FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3). Plaintiff is

cautioned, however, that “the sua sponte screening and dismissal procedure is cumulative of, and

not a substitute for, any subsequent Rule 12(b)(6) motion that [a defendant] may choose to

bring.” Teahan v. Wilhelm, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1115, 1119 (S.D. Cal. 2007).

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

 Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The claims against Defendant Cobb are DISMISSED without prejudice for failing

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and

§ 1915A. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this Defendant from the docket.

2. The Clerk shall issue a summons as to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint [ECF

No. 4] upon the remaining Defendants, and shall forward it to Plaintiff along with a blank U.S.

Marshal Form 285 for each of these Defendants. In addition, the Clerk shall provide Plaintiff

with a copy of this Order, the Court’s December 9, 2011 Order granting Plaintiff leave to

proceed IFP [ECF No. 3], and copies of his First Amended Complaint and the summons for

purposes of serving each Defendant. Upon receipt of this “IFP Package,” Plaintiff is directed

to complete the Form 285s as completely and accurately as possible, and to return them to the

Case 3:11-cv-01949-BTM-BGS Document 5 Filed 03/19/12 Page 4 of 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

5 11cv1949 (BGS)

U.S. Marshal according to the instructions provided by the Clerk in the letter accompanying his

IFP package. Thereafter, the U.S. Marshal shall serve a copy of the First Amended Complaint

and summons upon each Defendant as directed by Plaintiff on each Form 285. All costs of

service shall be advanced by the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3).

3. Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendants or, if appearance has been entered by

counsel, upon Defendants’ counsel, a copy of every further pleading or other document

submitted for consideration of the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original paper to be

filed with the Clerk of the Court a certificate stating the manner in which a true and correct copy

of any document was served on Defendants, or counsel for Defendants, and the date of service.

Any paper received by the Court which has not been filed with the Clerk or which fails to

include a Certificate of Service will be disregarded.

DATED: March 19, 2012

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:11-cv-01949-BTM-BGS Document 5 Filed 03/19/12 Page 5 of 5