Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03083/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03083-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNNEY RAMEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-11-3083-KJM-CMK-P

vs.

REYERSBACH; et al., ORDER

Defendants. 

 /

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On January 18, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations,

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days of service. Plaintiff

filed timely objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Local Rule

304, the court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file,

the court declines to adopt the findings and recommendations in their entirety.

///// 

1

Case 2:11-cv-03083-KJM-CMK Document 13 Filed 12/19/12 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

Plaintiff’s original complaint was filed on November 11, 2011. (ECF 1.) 

Plaintiff asserts claims of retaliation and denial of due process based on alleged seizure and

destruction of legal materials from his cell. Id. Plaintiff alleges defendants saw him assisting

other inmates prepare grievances and, in retaliation, seized legal materials from plaintiff’s cell

and subsequently destroyed them. Id. Plaintiff’s pleading does not make clear precisely what

legal documents were seized and destroyed, however it suggests both prepared written materials

and ordered transcripts were included. Id.

The complaint was screened by the magistrate judge, under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(A)(a). The magistrate judge recommends the complaint be dismissed with prejudice

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A)(b)(1) for failing to state a claim for which relief could be granted on

all grounds. The court finds to the contrary, there is potential for a retaliation claim, such that

leave to amend should be granted.

The magistrate judge correctly identified the NinthCircuit precedent applicable to

a First Amendment retaliation claim, such as the one asserted by plaintiff. “Within the prison

context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An

assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that

prisoner's protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate's exercise of his First

Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.” 

Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005). In this case, plaintiff contends

(1) defendants seized and destroyed legal documents from his cell (2) because they saw him

(3) helping other inmates prepare grievances and, as a result, (4) his First Amendment rights

were chilled without (5) a legitimate penological purpose. (ECF 1 at 6-8.) The magistrate judge

recommends dismissal of the claim, on the assumption that the seized and destroyed materials

were actually other inmates’ documents, and so plaintiff is asserting somebody else’s First

Amendment right to file grievances. Additionally, the magistrate judge relies on plaintiff’s

/////

2

Case 2:11-cv-03083-KJM-CMK Document 13 Filed 12/19/12 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

concession that the prison rule against having other inmates’ legal documents in his cell fulfills a

legitimate correctional goal.

In fact, it is unclear whether the seized and destroyed documents belonged to

plaintiff or other inmates. In his complaint, plaintiff alleges defendants Reyersbach, Granillo

and J. Smith “removed legal documents (22 pages transcript record) as well as other inmates

legal documents that was in his possession.” Id. at 10 (verbatim transcription). This suggests

that at least some of the seized documents belonged to plaintiff himself. If that is the case, both

of the magistrate judge’s grounds for dismissal are unfounded; in other words, plaintiff would be

seeking relief for the chilling of his own First Amendment rights and the seizure of his own

materials would not be in furtherance of any prison rule barring possession of other inmates’

legal materials.

Even if plaintiff does not amend to show the materials were his own, his claim

might proceed regardless. It is the case that a prisoner’s legal assistance to other inmates

deserves no more First Amendment protection than any other prisoner speech. See Shaw v.

Murphy, 532 U.S. 223, 231-32 (2001). However, within the normal contours of prisoner speech

protection, if plaintiff was deterred from providing legal assistance to other inmates as a result of

defendants’ alleged adverse action, he might have a claim that survives the initial screening

stage. 

“Unless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect ... a pro se

litigant is entitled to notice of the complaint's deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to

dismissal of the action.” Lucas v. Dept. of Corrections, 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995)

(citations omitted). If plaintiff is able to clarify precisely what documents were seized and

destroyed, subject to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11’s requirement of veracity in pleading,

the defect in his claims might be cured. The court thus grants plaintiff leave to amend.

/////

/////

3

Case 2:11-cv-03083-KJM-CMK Document 13 Filed 12/19/12 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 18, 2012 are adopted in part,

as to dismissal of Folsom State Prison and the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation as immune from suit, and dismissal of due process claims based on alleged

property rights and the prison grievance process. 

2. The findings and recommendations are not adopted in part, in that plaintiff is

granted leave to amend his retaliation claim only, to allege more specific facts regarding the

claimed adverse action by defendants Reyersbach, Granillo and Smith, including facts regarding

the precise materials seized and the claimed consequential chilling effect on plaintiff.

3. The case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

DATED: December 18, 2012.

4

Case 2:11-cv-03083-KJM-CMK Document 13 Filed 12/19/12 Page 4 of 4