Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01930/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01930-1/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 

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

pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The original 

complaint was dismissed with leave to amend and Plaintiff has 

filed an amended complaint. 

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 

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. 

Case 3:15-cv-01930-WHA Document 14 Filed 07/10/15 Page 1 of 4
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

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 

Plaintiff is a condemned prisoner and is represented by 

appointed counsel on his criminal appeal. In the original 

complaint Plaintiff argued that important legal property had been 

destroyed by Defendant that was vital to demonstrate that his 

appointed appellate counsel is ineffective and there is a 

conflict of interest. The complaint was dismissed with leave to 

amend for Plaintiff to describe in detail the legal documents 

that were vital for his criminal appeal and how the lack of the 

property has resulted in an actual injury. 

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 

Case 3:15-cv-01930-WHA Document 14 Filed 07/10/15 Page 2 of 4
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

documents pertaining to pending trial confiscated and not 

returned to conclusory to support claim of denial of access to 

court). 

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. At this time Plaintiff was in the process of 

finishing a motion regarding the conflict of interest and 

ineffectiveness of his appointed appellate counsel. It appears 

that Plaintiff was not able to file the motion or was missing key 

exhibits. 

However, Plaintiff has still failed to describe how he has 

suffered an actual legal injury. Plaintiff’s state appeal and 

state habeas petition continue. See S029843, S206963. Plaintiff 

can still submit a motion regarding the conflict of interest and 

how appointed counsel is ineffective. Because Plaintiff has 

failed to demonstrate an actual injury, he is not entitled to 

relief. 1 As Plaintiff has already been provided leave to amend and 

because it would be futile to allow further amendment, this case 

is dismissed with prejudice. 

III 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby orders as 

follows: 

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is DISMISSED with 

 

1 Moreover, Plaintiff’s allegations regarding how counsel is 

ineffective are not clear. Plaintiff spends a great deal of the 

amended complaint discussing the Knights Templar and Freemasonry 

and his ancestry. It appears that disagreements with counsel 

regarding Plaintiff’s ancestry and how it should be used in his 

appeal have led to Plaintiff’s desire for a different attorney.

Case 3:15-cv-01930-WHA Document 14 Filed 07/10/15 Page 3 of 4
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

prejudice for failure to state a claim. 

2. Plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order 

(Docket No. 12) is DENIED for the reasons set forth in the 

Court’s prior screening order. 

3. The Clerk shall close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 07/09/2015 

________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge 

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

Case 3:15-cv-01930-WHA Document 14 Filed 07/10/15 Page 4 of 4