Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04482/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04482-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

F'ILED 

AUO 2 0 2015 

CAll CtfMD ~· WIEKING NOR LER~b ~j~· 01 TR'CT COURT 

THERN 0~1 OS~F CALiFORNIA 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding prose, filed a civil rights complaint 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After an initial review, the court dismissed the complaint with 

leave to amend. As directed, plaintiff has filed a first amended complaint. For the reasons stated 

below, the court dismisses the amended complaint. 

DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review 

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner 

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss 

any claims that 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(b)(1), (2). Prose pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. 

Order of Dismissal 

P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.l4\Heams482dis. wpd 

Case 5:14-cv-04482-LHK Document 11 Filed 08/20/15 Page 1 of 6
1 Pacifica Police Dep 't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

2 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 

3 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that 

4 the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. 

5 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 ( 1988). 

6 B. 

7 

Plaintiffs Allegations 

1. Plaintiffs federal habeas petition in the Central District of California 

8 According to the amended complaint, on June 5, 2009, plaintiff filed a federal habeas 

9 petition in Hearns v. Harrington, No. 09-4030 JHN (OP) (C.D. Cal. filed June 5, 2009) ("Hearns 

10 f'). 1 On June 10, 2009, the court in Hearns I issued an order to show cause why the petition 

11 should not be dismissed as untimely. On September 22, 2009, after plaintiff filed his response to 

12 the order to show cause, the court issued a report and recommendation dismissing the case with 

13 prejudice because it was untimely. After judgment was entered thereafter, on November 9, 

14 2009, the judgment was set aside because the parties had not had an opportunity to respond to 

15 the report and recommendation. (Hearns I, Docket No.9.) On November 20, 2009, the court 

16 issued a report and recommendation dismissing the case with prejudice because it was untimely. 

17 (!d., Docket No. 10.) On December 21, 2009, plaintiff filed objections. (!d., Docket No. 14.) 

18 On January 14, 2010, the court adopted the report and recommendation, entered judgment, and 

19 denied a certificate of appealability. (!d., Docket Nos. 15-17.) 

20 After plaintiff filed his objections in Hearns I, but before the court entered judgment, on 

21 December 28, 2009, plaintiff turned over seven boxes oflegal material, all marked "legal 

22 material," to prison officials at Kern Valley State Prison ("KVSP") for transfer to Salinas Valley 

23 State Prison ("SVSP"), where plaintiff was to be housed. The following day, plaintiff arrived at 

24 SVSP and was told by Correctional Officer Halderman that none of the legal boxes had been 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1 The court sua sponte takes judicial notice of the pleadings in Hearns I. See Bias v. 

Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (recognizing that a district court "may take 

notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if 

those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue") (internal quotation marks and 

citations omitted). 

Order of Dismissal 

P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.l4\Heams482dis. wpd 2 

Case 5:14-cv-04482-LHK Document 11 Filed 08/20/15 Page 2 of 6
transferred to SVSP. Plaintiff informed Correctional Officer Halderman that plaintiffhad a legal 

2 deadline coming up, and that he needed those boxes. 

3 Plaintiff filed an administrative grievance ("602") requesting immediate delivery of the 

4 legal boxes. On December 31,2009, defendant Warden Hedgpeth rejected plaintiffs 602, and 

5 instructed plaintiff to submit it via mail to KVSP, from where plaintiffs boxes originated. 

6 KVSP rejected plaintiffs 602. 

7 2. Plaintiffs state habeas petition in Kern County Superior Court 

8 On March 11, 2010, plaintiff filed a state habeas petition in Kern County Superior Court. 

9 On May 12, 2010, the Superior Court directed Warden Hedgpeth to locate plaintiffs property. 

10 On June 21, 2010, plaintiff spoke with defendant Sgt. Jensen about the missing legal boxes and 

11 informed Sgt. Jensen that because he. was without his legal materials, Hearns I had been 

12 dismissed. On July 27, 2010, Warden Hedgpeth and Sgt. Jensen reported to the Superior Court 

13 that plaintiff had received 10 boxes of property between January 6, 2010, and January 13, 2010. 

14 On September 12, 201 0, plaintiff asked an SVSP prison official whether his seven legal 

15 boxes had arrived yet, and was told that none had been received per Sgt. Jensen. On May 13, 

16 2011, plaintiff filed a civil lawsuit in Superior Court against Warden Hedgpeth and Sgt. Jensen. 

17 On January 1, 2012, Warden Hedgpeth ordered the closure of facility law libraries to 

18 inmates unless an inmate could show that he was a party in a current court case with an 

19 impending court-ordered deadline. On March 14, 2012, plaintiff submitted a form requesting 

20 priority legal user status for the law library, but his request was denied because plaintiff did not 

21 qualify for such status. 

22 On November 19, 2012, the Superior Court ordered plaintiff to amend his complaint. On 

23 February 1, 2013, plaintiff gave an amended complaint to Correctional Officer Swangler for 

24 mailing to the Superior Court. On March 14, 2013, plaintiff was informed by the Superior Court 

25 that his amended complaint never arrived. Plaintiff explained to the Superior Court that he had 

26 delivered his amended complaint to prison staff over a month before, but the Superior Court still 

27 dismissed the case for failure to comply. 

28 On May 5, 2014, plaintiff received copies ofthe prison form describing the inventory and 

Order of Dismissal 

P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.14\Heams482dis. wpd 3 

Case 5:14-cv-04482-LHK Document 11 Filed 08/20/15 Page 3 of 6
transportation of plaintiffs legal boxes. It showed a September 9, 2012 record of inventory and 

2 storage by Sgt. Jensen, presumably meaning that SVSP received all of plaintiffs materials on 

3 September 9, 2012.2 

4 c. Plaintiffs federal complaint 

5 On October 7, 2014, plaintiff filed a federal complaint in this case. On January 27,2015, 

6 the court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. On March 17, 2015, plaintiff filed an 

7 amended complaint. Plaintiffs amended federal complaint requests the appointment of counsel 

8 to evaluate plaintiffs "legal rights and possible relief in Hearns!," and an injunction to allow 

9 plaintiff to submit a motion for reconsideration in Hearns I. 

10 Again, the court cannot determine what plaintiffs legal claim against either Warden 

11 Hedgpeth or Sgt. Jensen is. This court's previous order dismissing plaintiffs complaint with 

12 leave to amend already rejected a possible due process claim with prejudice because the facts 

13 alleged did not give rise to such a claim. 

14 To the extent plaintiff alleges that defendants denied him access to the courts and 

15 ultimately caused the dismissal of Hearns I, the facts alleged also do not support such a claim. A 

16 prisoner's constitutional right to litigate without interference encompasses the First Amendment 

17 right to petition the government by filing civil actions that have a reasonable basis in law or fact. 

18 Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F .3d 1090, 1102 (9th Cir. 2011 ). This right does not require prison 

19 officials to provide affirmative assistance in the preparation of legal papers, but rather forbids 

20 states from erecting barriers that impede the right of access of incarcerated persons. !d. The 

21 Ninth Circuit has held that "prisoners have a right under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to 

22 litigate claims challenging their sentences or the conditions of their confinement to conclusion 

23 without active interference by prison officials." !d.; see id. at 1103-04 (reversing district court 

24 and finding cognizable denial of access to courts claim based on prisoner's allegations that he 

25 was repeatedly transferred between different facilities in order to hinder his ability to litigate his 

26 

27 

28 

2 The court notes that plaintiff alleges that on September 9, 2010, Sgt. Jensen took 

possession of plaintiffs legal material from a CDCR transport bus sergeant. Plaintiff claims that 

Sgt. Jensen had the boxes relabelled SVSP LEGAL MATERIAL but did not tell plaintiff about 

the arrival ofthe boxes. 

Order of Dismissal 

P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.l4\Hearns482dis. wpd 4 

Case 5:14-cv-04482-LHK Document 11 Filed 08/20/15 Page 4 of 6
pending civil lawsuits, prison officials seized and withheld all of his legal files, and as a result of 

2 such actions several of his pending suits were dismissed). Destruction or confiscation of legal 

3 work may violate an inmate's right to access to the courts, see Vigliotto v. Terry, 873 F.2d 1201, 

4 1202 (9th Cir. 1989), if plaintiff can establish actual injury, see Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 

5 1171 (9th Cir. 1989). 

6 After reviewing plaintiff's amended complaint, the court concludes that plaintiff has not 

7 stated a cognizable claim for relief that defendants denied him access to the courts. The 

8 pleadings in Hearns I clearly establish that plaintiff was not without his legal boxes until after 

9 plaintiff had already filed objections to the report and recommendation recommending that 

10 plaintiff's federal habeas petition be dismissed as untimely. Moreover, a review ofthe report 

11 and recommendation and order adopting the report and recommendation demonstrates that the 

12 district court in Hearns I dismissed plaintiffs petition on the basis that it was untimely by more 

13 than ten years. In addition, plaintiffs motion to vacate the judgment in Hearns I shows that 

14 plaintiff did not raise any complaint that he was without his legal materials and thus could not 

15 comply with any court order. Thus, plaintiff has not provided any facts to show that he was 

16 actually injured when he was without his legal boxes. It is apparent from plaintiffs underlying 

17 amended complaint and request for relief that he wishes tore-litigate Hearns I. However, a 

18 federal civil rights action is not the proper vehicle for such relief. 

19 In addition, the court notes that plaintiff filed a previous federal civil rights case 

20 challenging the same underlying events in Hearns v. Hedgpeth, No. 13-0633 LHK (N.D. Cal. 

21 filed Feb. 13, 2013). In that case, the court dismissed SVSP defendants with prejudice for failure 

22 to state a cognizable claim for relief. !d., Docket No. 11. Specifically, the court stated, 

23 "Plaintiff's claims against SVSP defendants, liberally construed, merely allege that the SVSP 

24 defendants did not affirmatively assist him in preparing his legal papers to show that he did not 

25 receive his boxes of legal property from KVSP. This is insufficient to raise an inference 

26 demonstrating that SVSP officials erected barriers preventing him from accessing the courts. 

27 See Silva, 652 F .3d at 1102. Based on the allegations presented, it is beyond doubt that plaintiff 

28 can provide no set of facts against the named SVSP defendants in support ofhis claim which 

Order of Dismissal 

P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.14\Heams482dis. wpd 5 

Case 5:14-cv-04482-LHK Document 11 Filed 08/20/15 Page 5 of 6
would entitle him to relief. Wei/burg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007)." !d. The 

2 court thereafter transferred the rest of the case to the Eastern District of California where the 

3 remaining defendants were located. 

4 Even after being given an opportunity to amend, plaintiff has not otherwise alleged that 

5 defendants violated a specific constitutional right. The court previously warned plaintiff that in 

6 his amended complaint, he was required to state what right he alleges was violated. Plaintiff has 

7 not done so, and the court cannot determine, even liberally construed, what constitutional rights 

8 plaintiff believes were violated. 

9 CONCLUSION 

10 Accordingly, plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: ~ /n I zocC)-

' I 

Order of Dismissal 

P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.14\Heams482dis. wpd 6 

Case 5:14-cv-04482-LHK Document 11 Filed 08/20/15 Page 6 of 6