Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00653/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00653-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOWELL FINLEY,

Plaintiff, CV F 05 0653 LJO WMW P

vs. ORDER DISMISSING 

 COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

R. CORLEY, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

This action proceeds on the original complaint. Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody

of the California Department of Corrections at CSP Solano, brings this civil rights action against

defendant correctional officials employed by the Department of Corrections at Pleasant Valley

State Prison. 

Plaintiff claims that Defendants have denied him access to the courts. 

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that defendants prohibited his legal mail from being sent. 

In 2004, Plaintiff filed a civil action against prison officials at Pleasant Valley

State Prison. The action was filed in Fresno County Superior Court, and removed to the

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. 

Case 1:05-cv-00653-LJO -WMW Document 13 Filed 08/06/07 Page 1 of 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

Finley v. Stone, case no. BL6002710 and Finley v. Jones, 04CECL 01648. Plaintiff does 1

not indicate where he filed these suits. 

 Plaintiff attaches numerous documents as exhibits to his complaint. Plaintiff’s exhibits 2

include a response to his inmate grievance, indicating that mail sent to Sheriff’s Departments is not

considered legal mail. Mail sent to a court is considered legal mail. 

2

In February 2004, Plaintiff sent to the Fresno County Sheriff’s Department a copy

of the summons and complaint. In March of 2004, the Sheriff’s Department effected

service upon five of the seven defendants. The remaining defendants were not served due

to lack of identifying and locating information.

Plaintiff was also litigating two other lawsuits at this time. Both lawsuits were

proceeding in the Superior Court of the State of California. In March 2004, plaintiff 1

attempted to mail documents regarding service of the summons and complaint in Finley v.

Stone. Plaintiff alleges that each time he attempted to do this, Defendants Rael and Corley

would reject the mail. The mail was rejected on various grounds: Failure to meet the

criteria for legal mail; exceeding the weekly allotment of confidential letters for indigent

inmates; exceeding weight restrictions. Plaintiff also alleges that “the mailroom” also

redesignated Plaintiff’s legal mail as confidential mail. 

2

In May 2004, the superior court issued an order to show cause why sanctions should

not be imposed for Plaintiff’s failure to effect service of process. In April 2004, Plaintiff

was transferred to Folsom State Prison. In May of 2004, Plaintiff was able to mail the

documents, and the defendants were served. The lawsuit at issue, Finley v. Stone, was

eventually dismissed on other grounds. 

Because states must ensure indigent prisoners meaningful access to

the courts, prison officials are required to provide either (1) adequate law libraries, or (2)

adequate assistance from persons trained in the law. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977). 

Under prior law, Bounds was treated as establishing "core requirements," such that a prisoner

Case 1:05-cv-00653-LJO -WMW Document 13 Filed 08/06/07 Page 2 of 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

3

alleging deprivation of the Bounds minima need not allege actual injury to state a constitutional

claim. Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1171 (9th Cir. 1989). Recent Supreme Court precedent

abolishes such approach, however, providing that all inmate claims for interference with access

to the court include "actual injury" as an element. Casey v. Lewis, 518 U.S.343 (1996).

To establish a Bounds violation, a prisoner must show that his prison's law library

or legal assistance program frustrated or impeded his ability to pursue a nonfrivolous legal claim. 

Casey, supra, 518 U.S. 343, 347. The right of access does not require the State to "enable the

prisoner to discover grievances" or to "litigate effectively once in court." The Casey Court

further limits the right of access to the courts, as follows:

Finally, we must observe that the injury requirement is not

satisfied by just any type of frustrated legal claim .... Bounds does

not guarantee inmates the wherewithal to transform themselves

into litigating engines capable of filing everything from

shareholder derivative actions to slip-and-fall claims. The tools it

requires to be provided are those that the inmates need in order to

attack their sentences, directly or collaterally, and in order to

challenge the conditions of their confinement. Impairment of any

other litigating capacity is simply one of the incidental (and

perfectly constitutional) consequences of conviction and

incarceration.

Casey, supra, 518 U.S. at 346.

Here, Plaintiff fails to allege facts that indicate actual injury. Though Plaintiff

does allege conduct that made it more difficult for him to prosecute his actions, he does not

allege that his lawsuit was dismissed as a result of Defendants’ conduct. Plaintiff has not allege

facts that indicate actual injury as that term is described above. The complaint must therefore be

dismissed. Plaintiff will, however, be granted leave to file an amended complaint. 

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the

conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff's constitutional rights. See

Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms

how each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless

Case 1:05-cv-00653-LJO -WMW Document 13 Filed 08/06/07 Page 3 of 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

4

there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant's actions and the claimed

deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir.

1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in

order to make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an

amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is

because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux

v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original

pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently

alleged. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a

first amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the

docket number assigned this case and must be labeled "First Amended Complaint." Failure to

file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this

action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00653-LJO -WMW Document 13 Filed 08/06/07 Page 4 of 4