Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01930/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01930-0/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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GERALD DEAN de CRUZ,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

A. PANIZZA, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 15-cv-1930-TEH 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND 

Plaintiff, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed this 

pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 Plaintiff is 

granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. 

His complaint is now before the Court for initial screening 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

I 

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 

 

1 Plaintiff has filed the action as a motion for a preliminary 

injunction, but the Court will interpret the filing as a civil 

rights action that also requests a preliminary injunction.

Case 3:15-cv-01930-WHA Document 11 Filed 06/02/15 Page 1 of 6
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 Californi

a

defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

Pleadings filed by pro se litigants, however, must be liberally 

construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010); 

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 essential 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). 

II 

A 

In his complaint, Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction 

to stop the destruction of legal property in his possession that 

is required for his criminal appeal. Plaintiff is a condemned 

prisoner and is represented by counsel on appeal. He argues that 

the legal property is necessary to demonstrate that counsel is 

ineffective and there is a conflict of interest. 

Plaintiff states that in March 2015, inmates were informed 

that the prison was going to only allow six cubic feet of 

personal property and all excess property would be sent home or 

destroyed. Plaintiff states there was not sufficient time to 

file inmate appeals, so he sent his property to the property 

office for storage. On April 15, 2015, Plaintiff was notified 

that property he sent to the property office must either be sent 

home or would be destroyed. In the complaint, Plaintiff states 

that the property will be destroyed by April 28-30, 2015. The 

Court received Plaintiff’s filing on April 29, 2015, though a 

Case 3:15-cv-01930-WHA Document 11 Filed 06/02/15 Page 2 of 6
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 Californi

a

completed in forma pauperis application was not filed until May 

13, 2015. 

B 

Allegations of destruction or confiscation of legal 

documents may state a claim for denial of access to the courts. 

See Morello v. James, 810 F.2d 344, 346-348 (2d Cir. 1987). A 

plaintiff must allege an "actual injury" to court access, 

however, which consists of some specific "instance in which an 

inmate was actually denied access to the courts." Sands v. 

Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1171 (9th Cir. 1989). Only if an actual 

injury is alleged does a plaintiff state a claim for which relief 

can be granted. See id.; see, e.g., Jenkins v. McMickens, 618 F. 

Supp. 1472, 1474-75 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (complaint alleging certain 

documents pertaining to pending trial confiscated and not 

returned to conclusory to support claim of denial of access to 

court). 

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, it 

would appear that the issue is moot if the property was destroyed 

at the same time the Court received the complaint. If Plaintiff 

still seeks injunctive relief or other relief, the case is still 

dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff must describe in detail 

the legal documents that are vital for his criminal appeal and 

how the lack of the property has resulted in an actual injury. 

Plaintiff states that his appointed death penalty attorneys were 

assigned without his consultation. Plaintiff also disagrees with 

the decisions of the attorneys with respect to the fact that he 

is a Freemason. He must provide additional information on the 

contents of the legal documents and present more allegations of 

Case 3:15-cv-01930-WHA Document 11 Filed 06/02/15 Page 3 of 6
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 Californi

a

an actual injury. 

III 

 Plaintiff has also requested a preliminary injunction 

regarding his legal property. "A preliminary injunction is ‘an 

extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted 

unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of 

persuasion.'" Lopez v. Brewer, et al., 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th 

Cir. 2012) (citation omitted) (emphasis in original). The 

standard for issuing a TRO is similar to that required for a 

preliminary injunction. See Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. 

United States Dist. Court, 650 F.2d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 1981) 

(Ferguson, J., dissenting). "A plaintiff seeking a preliminary 

injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the 

merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the 

absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips 

in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest." 

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 

(2008). 

For the same reasons noted above, Plaintiff’s request for a 

preliminary injunction is denied. He has not sufficiently 

described the legal documents that will be destroyed and how they 

are necessary to demonstrate that his appointed attorneys are 

ineffective. As a result, he has not shown that he is likely to 

succeed on the merits or suffer irreparable harm. 

IV 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby orders as 

follows: 

1. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO FILE A 

Case 3:15-cv-01930-WHA Document 11 Filed 06/02/15 Page 4 of 6
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT containing all related claims against all 

Defendants that Plaintiff wishes to proceed against in this 

action. The pleading must be simple, concise and direct and must 

state clearly and succinctly how each and every Defendant is 

alleged to have violated Plaintiff’s federally-protected rights. 

See Leer, 844 F.2d at 634. The pleading must include the caption 

and civil case number used in this order and the words COURT 

ORDERED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Plaintiff is 

advised that he must file all of his claims in one complaint and 

not present them piecemeal to the Court in various letters and 

other documents. Failure to file a proper First Amended 

Complaint within twenty-eight days of this order will result in 

the dismissal of this action without prejudice. 

2. Plaintiff is advised that the First Amended Complaint 

will supersede the original Complaint and all other pleadings. 

Claims and defendants not included in the First Amended Complaint 

will not be considered by the Court. See Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) ("For claims 

dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend, we will not 

require that they be repled in a subsequent amended complaint to 

preserve them for appeal. But for any claims voluntarily 

dismissed, we will consider those claims to be waived if not 

repled."). 

3. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this 

action. Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any change of 

address by filing a separate paper with the Clerk headed “Notice 

of Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court’s orders in 

a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal 

Case 3:15-cv-01930-WHA Document 11 Filed 06/02/15 Page 5 of 6
6 

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 Californi

a

of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

4. Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction (Docket 

No. 1) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 06/02/2015 

________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge 

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.15\ Dean1930.dwlta.docx 

Case 3:15-cv-01930-WHA Document 11 Filed 06/02/15 Page 6 of 6