Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04163/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04163-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNNIE LEE BROWN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MAILROOM PROCESSOR # 14; P.

CARRIER; RICHARD KIRKLAND; and

S. ORTIZ,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-4163 PJH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, an inmate at Corcoran State Prison, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint

and an amended complaint. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

The amended complaint is now before the court for screening.

DISCUSSION

A. 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). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and

dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at

1915A(b)(1),(2). 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 essential

elements: (1) that a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United

States was violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting

Case 4:05-cv-04163-PJH Document 12 Filed 02/27/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims

Plaintiff alleges that the defendant mail room employee opened mail addressed to

him from the County of San Joaquin Child Protective Services department. He asserts that

this was "legal confidential mail exempt from sc[ru]tiny." The other defendants are the

officials who denied his grievances about the opening of the letter.

Petitioner's main complaint seems to be that the prison violated California

regulations regarding what mail can be opened outside the presence of the inmate. That

might be actionable in state court, or even in this court if there also were a federal claim on

which to ground jurisdiction. However, there is no federal right to be present when mail

from public officials or agencies is opened. Mann v. Adams, 846 F.2d 589, 590 (9th Cir.

1988). Plaintiff thus has failed to state a section 1983 claim, and, because there is no

constitutional right not to have such mail opened, an amendment would be futile. The

section 1983 claim will be dismissed without leave to amend. 

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim that

plaintiff may have intended to present. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

CONCLUSION

The section 1983 claim is DISMISSED with prejudice. Any state law claims are

DISMISSED without prejudice. The clerk shall close the file. Plaintiff's motions (documents

numbered seven and eight on the docket) are DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 27, 2007. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.05\BROWN163.DSM 

Case 4:05-cv-04163-PJH Document 12 Filed 02/27/07 Page 2 of 2