Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01857/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01857-0/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIO MARTINEZ ARIAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. DAVEY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01857-JSC 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights complaint under 42 

U.S.C. ' 1983 against his former and current wardens.1 His application to proceed in forma 

pauperis is granted in a separate order. For the reasons explained below, the complaint is 

dismissed without leave to amend. 

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). 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). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c). (Dkt. 1 at 5.) 

Case 3:15-cv-01857-JSC Document 3 Filed 05/29/15 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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 upon 

which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although 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).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983, a plaintiff must allege two 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 U.S. 

42, 48 (1988).

LEGAL CLAIMS

Plaintiff alleges that on July 14, 2014, while he was incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison, 

his wife was excluded as a visitor for a year because she was found to be in possession of drugs on 

prison property. According to Plaintiff, she had a legal prescription for the drugs for medical 

reasons at the time. Plaintiff filed administrative appeals of his wife’s exclusion as a visitor, but 

these appeals were rejected. Plaintiff claims that the rejection of his appeals contradicts the 

policies and regulations of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and 

violates his right to due process. Plaintiff fails to state a viable section 1983 claim.

First, the violation of prison policies or other state laws cannot be the basis of a claim 

under Section 1983, which requires a violation of federal law. West, 487 U.S. at 48. Plaintiff does 

not have a federal constitutional right to have his administrative appeals correctly decided because 

there is no federal constitutional right to a prison administrative appeal or grievance system. See 

Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Second, Plaintiff’s constitutional right to due process does not extend to the exclusion of 

Case 3:15-cv-01857-JSC Document 3 Filed 05/29/15 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Northern District of California

his wife as a visitor. Interests protected by the Due Process Clause may arise from two sources--

the Due Process Clause itself and laws of the states. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 223-27 

(1976). A prisoner's interest in unfettered visitation is not guaranteed by the Due Process Clause 

itself. Kentucky Dep't of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460, 461 (1989) (“The denial of 

prison access to a particular visitor is well within the terms of confinement ordinarily 

contemplated by a prison sentence, and therefore is not independently protected by the Due 

Process Clause.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

California’s regulations governing prison visitation would only implicate his federal right 

to due process if the regulations narrowly restrict the power of prison officials to deny inmates 

visitation, and whether the deprivation suffered due to a denial of visitation is one of "real 

substance." Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 477-87 (1995). California Code of Regulations Title 

15, Section 3170.1 sets forth general substantive criteria which must be followed and 

circumstances under which visitation must be approved. However, Section 3172.1(b) specifically 

provides that visitation may be discretionarily denied for reasons other than those set forth in the 

regulations and Section 3170.1(c) states that visits are subject to denial or restriction as necessary 

to provide fair allocation of prison resources. This reservation of the right to allow and disallow 

visits "is not such that an inmate can reasonably form an objective expectation that a visit would 

necessarily be allowed absent the occurrence of one of the listed conditions." See Thompson, 490 

U.S. at 464-65. Because a visit may be denied regardless of compliance with substantive criteria, 

this language is not sufficiently mandatory to meet the first prong of the Sandin test, and therefore 

no protected liberty interest requiring constitutional protection is created. See Valdez v. Woodford, 

308 Fed.Appx. 181 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The district court properly dismissed Valdez’s due process 

claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because neither federal nor state law has created a protected 

interest in visitation.”). 

Thus, while the exclusion of Plaintiff’s wife as a visitor based on her possession of drugs 

on prison property may violate prison regulations or other aspects of state law, it does not 

implicate his federal right to due process or his rights under federal law. Therefore, Plaintiff’s 

allegations, even when liberally construed, do not state a cognizable claim for relief under 42 

Case 3:15-cv-01857-JSC Document 3 Filed 05/29/15 Page 3 of 4
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

U.S.C. § 1983. Leave to amend is not warranted because it is clear that Plaintiff can prove no set 

of facts regarding the denial of visitations by his wife that would amount to a violation of federal 

law. See Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007) (a pro se complaint may be 

dismissed for failure to state a claim “where it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no 

set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief”); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 

F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

CONCLUSION

The complaint 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: May 29, 2015

___________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01857-JSC Document 3 Filed 05/29/15 Page 4 of 4