Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01344/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01344-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DANA DEMETRIUS BAIRFIELD, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

OFFICER COLLINS – TRC # 1C08, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:14-cv-1344 JAM AC P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff is an inmate at the Solano County Jail, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending for this court’s review is 

plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). For the reasons that follow, 

the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed. 

 Plaintiff commenced this action on April 7, 2014, in the United States District Court for 

the Northern District of California, as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. ECF No. 1. On June 

23, 2014, following transfer of the action to this court, the undersigned construed plaintiff’s initial 

filing as a civil rights complaint, in which plaintiff alleged the mishandling of his legal mail by 

Officer Collins at the Solano County Jail. The court dismissed the original filing with leave to 

file a civil rights complaint on the form provided with the court’s order. ECF No. 13. Plaintiff 

thereafter filed a First Amended Complaint. ECF No. 14. 

 On December 24, 2014, this court dismissed plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint with 

Case 2:14-cv-01344-JAM-AC Document 19 Filed 02/23/15 Page 1 of 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 

2

leave to file a further amended complaint. ECF No. 16. While it appeared that plaintiff was 

attempting to state a First Amendment retaliation claim against defendant Collins, the court found 

that plaintiff’s allegations1 failed to state a cognizable claim.2 In addition to noting the 

deficiencies in plaintiff’s allegations, the court informed plaintiff of the legal standards for stating 

a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim under Section 1983. 

 On January 20, 2015, plaintiff timely filed a Second Amended Complaint, which was 

docketed on February 6, 2015.3 As now framed, plaintiff’s allegations against defendant Collins 

state in full: 

C/O Collins has and was depriving of my legal right as a pro-pre 

inmater (sic) and that in itself is a violation of my civil right[s]. 

ECF No. 18 at 3. Plaintiff seeks “25.000 dollor (sic)” in damages. 

 

1

 As previously described by this court, “The First Amended Complaint [] alleges that plaintiff 

‘filed a writ’ in superior court, after which, defendant Collins began refusing plaintiff ‘pro-se 

status’ and legal supplies, and started ‘denying me legal mail passage.’ ECF No. 14 at 3.” ECF 

No. 16 at 3. 

2

 As previously found by this court, ECF No. 16 at 3-4: 

The complaint does not sufficiently allege a First Amendment 

retaliation claim. The complaint alleges adverse action by a state 

actor, but it fails to allege facts showing that the adverse action was 

taken because of plaintiff’s exercise of his constitutional rights. 

Rather, by alleging that defendant’s actions occurred “after” 

plaintiff filed his writ, the complaint “pleads facts that are ‘merely 

consistent with’ a defendant's liability.” [Ashcroft v.] Iqbal, 556 

U.S. [662] at 678 [(2009)] (quoting [Bell Atlantic Corp. v.] 

Twombly, 550 U.S. [544] at 557 [(2007)]). Such pleading “stops 

short of the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement 

to relief.’” Id., at 557 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 678) (some 

quotation marks omitted). Further, the complaint fails to allege 

facts showing that plaintiff’s exercise of his constitutional rights 

were a substantial or motivating factor for the officer’s actions, that 

the adverse action “chilled” plaintiff’s exercise of his constitutional 

rights, and that there was no legitimate correctional goal for the 

adverse action. 

3

 Plaintiff’s filing dates are based on application of the prison mailbox rule. See Houston v. Lack, 

487 U.S. 266 (1988) (establishing prison mailbox rule); Campbell v. Henry, 614 F.3d 1056, 1059 

(9th Cir. 2010) (applying the mailbox rule to both state and federal filings by incarcerated 

inmates). 

Case 2:14-cv-01344-JAM-AC Document 19 Filed 02/23/15 Page 2 of 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 

3

 This court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims 

that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 

 The allegations of plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint are far less cognizable than 

those set forth in his First Amended Complaint. The undersigned finds that plaintiff’s Second 

Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Id., § 1915A(b)(1). 

Moreover, this court is persuaded that plaintiff is unable to allege any facts, based upon the 

circumstances he challenges, that would state a cognizable claim, and therefore concludes that 

further amendment would be futile. “A district court may deny leave to amend when amendment 

would be futile.” Hartmann v.CDCR, 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013); accord Lopez v. 

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Courts are not required to grant leave to amend if a 

complaint lacks merit entirely.”). 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 

 1. This action be dismissed for failure to state a claim; and 

 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 

(9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: February 20, 2015 

 

Case 2:14-cv-01344-JAM-AC Document 19 Filed 02/23/15 Page 3 of 3