Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01309/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01309-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LANARD KITCHENS, 

 Plaintiff, 

v.

JOHN W. TYLER, et al.,

 Defendants.

CASE NO. 1: 15-cv-01309-LJO-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS COMPLAINT WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A 

CLAIM

 (ECF No. 9)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION 

DEADLINE

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 5.) 

The Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint and dismissed it with leave to amend. 

(ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) is now before the Court for 

screening. (ECF No. 9.)

II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 

Case 1:15-cv-01309-LJO-MJS Document 10 Filed 11/23/15 Page 1 of 7
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

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has 

raised claims that are legally “frivolous, malicious,” or 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). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, 

or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any 

time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim on 

which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

III. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

Plaintiff identifies California Highway Patrol (“CHP”) Officer John W. Tyler, CHP 

special counsel Jonathan Rothman, and CHP Lieutenant Commander D.W. Knoff as 

Defendants. 

Plaintiff’s allegations can be summarized essentially as follows:

On May 9, 2010, Plaintiff attempted to commit “suicide by cop” during a traffic 

stop by Defendant Tyler in Hanford, California. Plaintiff was charged with attempted 

murder of a peace officer and wrongfully convicted. Plaintiff is currently serving his time 

at Pleasant Valley State Prison. 

Defendant Tyler lied to detectives of the King County Sheriff’s Office regarding the 

incident. In March 2012, at Plaintiff’s trial, Defendant Tyler committed perjury by 

testifying that Plaintiff stated “Don’t shoot. Don’t shoot. Please don’t kill me.” (ECF No. 9

at 4.) This testimony was the only evidence presented at trial as to Plaintiff’s intent.

During Plaintiff’s direct appeal of his conviction, he discovered there was an audio 

recording of the incident on May 9, 2010, which Defendant Tyler altered in order to 

conceal exculpatory evidence. In September 2013, during the pendency of Plaintiff’s 

direct appeal, he requested on numerous occasions the complete original recording from 

Defendant Tyler. Defendant Tyler did not respond, which “Plaintiff concluded . . . was a 

deliberate act to conceal evidence so as to prevent Plaintiff from bringing a claim on 

direct appeal.” (ECF No. 9 at 9.) 

Case 1:15-cv-01309-LJO-MJS Document 10 Filed 11/23/15 Page 2 of 7
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

In December 2013, Plaintiff sent a request to CHP headquarters. Defendant

Rothman responded that the requested documents were exempt from disclosure. 

Plaintiff contacted Internal Affairs who ordered that the records be produced. Defendant 

Rothman has yet to produce the documents because he wants to conceal exculpatory 

evidence and prevent Plaintiff from bringing a claim on appeal.

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant Tyler for altering and withholding 

evidence and making false statements. Defendant Knoff failed to conduct a meaningful 

investigation of Plaintiff’s complaint by responding “I have determined that you had your 

day in court. . .” (ECF No. 9 at 13.) Defendant Knoff knew of Defendant Tyler’s 

misconduct and conspired with Defendant Rothman to prevent Plaintiff from appealing 

his conviction on this basis. 

As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff was not able to raise a claim 

regarding Defendant Tyler’s misconduct in his appeal. Plaintiff’s appeal was denied and 

his conviction affirmed. Plaintiff is seeking to file a habeas petition but is unable to do so 

without the CHP audio recording, which Defendants are concealing. 

Defendants Tyler and Rothman denied Plaintiff access to the courts in violation of 

his First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Defendant Knoff denied Plaintiff 

access to the courts by denying Plaintiff access to the CHP grievance process in 

violation of the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Defendants’ conduct has 

delayed Plaintiff’s pursuit of post-conviction relief and caused him emotional distress.

Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Defendants to provide him with the audio 

recording and damages and costs.

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Section 1983

Section 1983 “provides a cause of action for the ‘deprivation of any rights, 

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws’ of the United States.” 

Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass’n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). 

Case 1:15-cv-01309-LJO-MJS Document 10 Filed 11/23/15 Page 3 of 7
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

4

Section 1983 “‘is not itself a source of substantive rights,’ but merely provides ‘a method 

for vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere.’” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 

393-94 (1989) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144, n. 3 (1979)).

To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution and 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. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); see also Ketchum v. 

Cnty. of Alameda, 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 

the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations 

are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, 

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff 

must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is 

plausible on its face.’” Id. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere possibility 

that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are accepted as 

true, legal conclusions are not. Id. 

B. Access to Courts

Plaintiff has a constitutional right of access to the courts. See Christopher v. 

Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 n.12 (2002) (noting the right is grounded in the Privileges 

and Immunities clause, the First Amendment petition clause, the Fifth Amendment due 

process clause, and the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and due process 

clauses); see, e.g., Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2011). The right 

is limited to bringing complaints to federal court in direct criminal appeals, habeas 

petitions, and civil rights actions. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996). It is not a 

right to discover such claims or to litigate them effectively once filed with a court. Id. at 

354-55. A plaintiff must show that he suffered an “actual injury,” i.e. prejudice with 

Case 1:15-cv-01309-LJO-MJS Document 10 Filed 11/23/15 Page 4 of 7
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

5

respect to contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing 

deadline or present a non-frivolous claim. Id. at 348-49. An “actual injury” is one that 

hinders the plaintiff’s ability to pursue a legal claim. Id. at 351. 

Where a prisoner asserts a backward-looking denial of access claim – one 

seeking a remedy for a lost opportunity to present a legal claim – he must show: 1) the 

loss of a “nonfrivolous” or “arguable” underlying claim, 2) “the official acts frustrating the 

litigation,” and 3) “a remedy that may be awarded as recompense but [that is] not 

otherwise available in some suit that may yet be brought.” Christopher v. Harbury, 536 

U.S. at 415, 417 (noting that a backward-looking denial of access complaint “should 

state the underlying claim in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), just 

as if it were being independently pursued.”).

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are interfering with his right to file a habeas 

petition by not providing him with evidence which he believes is exculpatory, and which 

he believes is necessary to support his request for post-conviction habeas relief. The 

denial of a meaningful access to the courts claim can be “established where a party 

engages in pre-filing actions which effectively covers-up evidence and renders any state 

court remedies ineffective.” Delew v. Wagner, 143 F. 3d 1219, 1222 (9th Cir. 1998) 

(citing Swekel v. City of River Rouge, 119 F. 3d 1259, 1263-1264 (6th Cir. 1997)). 

 Plaintiff has not alleged, nor can he at this point, that all of his state court 

remedies have been rendered ineffective. While Plaintiff alleges his direct appeal was 

affirmed, he has not yet filed a habeas petition. Plaintiff cannot merely anticipate that a 

state court remedy will be ineffective because of Defendants’ actions; he must first 

pursue said remedies and do so before bringing an access to courts claim. See Swekel, 

119 F. 3d at 1264. His claim thus should be dismissed. Because Plaintiff may be able 

to state a claim for relief if Defendants’ actions in fact do render all of his state court 

remedies ineffective, it is recommended that this case be dismissed without prejudice.

Case 1:15-cv-01309-LJO-MJS Document 10 Filed 11/23/15 Page 5 of 7
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

6

Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Knoff denied him access to the courts by 

denying him access to the CHP grievance process. Plaintiff does not allege that 

Defendant Knoff did anything to frustrate him filing a CHP grievance. Defendant Knoff’s 

denial of the CHP grievance did not in itself hinder Plaintiff from filing suit. Plaintiff has 

also not alleged any “actual injury” with respect to Defendant Knoff’s denial of his 

grievance. Plaintiff cannot state a claim for access to the courts based on these facts. 

Leave to amend is denied as futile.

C. Injunctive Relief

Plaintiff seeks an order for Defendants to provide him with a copy of the CHP 

audio recording. Injunctive relief, whether temporary or permanent, is an “extraordinary 

remedy, never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22 

(2008). “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.” Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 

1052 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20). 

Plaintiff has not alleged the above elements. Plaintiff was advised of the 

requirements for seeking injunctive relief and the deficiencies in his complaint but failed 

to correct them. As noted above, Plaintiff cannot state a claim for access to courts and 

therefore cannot establish that he is entitled to his requested injunctive relief at this time. 

Leave to amend is denied, and it is recommended that Plaintiff’s request for injunctive 

relief be dismissed without prejudice.

V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s FAC does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff 

may be able to if in fact Defendants’ actions prove to render all of his state court 

remedies ineffective. The undersigned recommends that the action be dismissed 

Case 1:15-cv-01309-LJO-MJS Document 10 Filed 11/23/15 Page 6 of 7
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

7

without prejudice and that the Clerk of the Court terminate any and all pending motions 

and close the case. 

The Clerk should send Plaintiff a copy of his FAC filed on October 26, 2015 (ECF 

No. 9.) with this order.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States 

District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with the findings and 

recommendations, the parties may file written objections with the Court. The document 

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 

A party may respond to another party’s objections by filing a response within fourteen 

(14) days after being served with a copy of that party’s objections. The parties are 

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of 

rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter 

v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 20, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01309-LJO-MJS Document 10 Filed 11/23/15 Page 7 of 7