Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02773/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02773-7/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES ALEXANDER,

Plaintiff, No. 2:08-cv-2773 MCE KJN P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 14, 2009, the magistrate

judge screened plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 13), as required by 28 U.S.C. §

1915A, and authorized service of process upon four defendants (Dkt. No. 16). Plaintiff filed an

interlocutory appeal challenging this court’s “order dismissing portions of plaintiff’s Second

Amended Complaint.” (Dkt. No. 17.) The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (Dkt.

No. 23.) Plaintiff thereafter filed the instant motion to “vacate/nullify” the magistrate judge’s

screening order. (Dkt. No. 25; see also, Dkt. No. 32.) Plaintiff relies on Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6),

which authorizes, inter alia, relief from a final order for “any . . . reason that justifies relief.”

Plaintiff also seeks a stay of this action pending resolution of his motion. (Dkt. No. 33.)

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and the magistrate

judge’s screening order and finds that plaintiff’s motion is without merit. The following claims

and defendants were properly dismissed, or service of process properly disallowed upon specific

defendants:

1. Defendant California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation was properly dismissed

pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment’s bar to suits by private parties against a state

agency. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979).

2. Service of process was not permitted upon defendant S. Armoshus, Chief Deputy

Case 2:08-cv-02773-MCE-KJN Document 34 Filed 03/11/10 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

 The magistrate judge designated the paragraph numbers of plaintiff’s Second Amended

1

Complaint as plaintiff’s “Claims,” resulting in the omission of reference to some paragraphs. All

paragraphs/claims are now accounted. See n. 2, infra. 

2

Warden, because no charging allegations were made against him; accordingly, he will be

dismissed from this action pursuant to this order.

3. Service of process was not permitted upon defendants J. Blaylock, T. Kraft, and J.T.

Flaherty, because plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies on his claims

against these defendants; accordingly, these defendants will be dismissed from this action

pursuant to this order.

4. Despite instruction by this court and opportunity to amend his complaint accordingly,

plaintiff failed to state a claim for denial of access to the courts, as set forth in his

paragraphs numbered 27 through 39. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (plaintiff 1

must allege facts demonstrating that defendants prevented him from bringing or pursuing

an actionable claim). Thus, service of process was not permitted upon the defendants

named in those claims, viz., T. Felker, former Warden, High Desert State Prison

(“HDSP”); M. McDonald, Warden, HDSP; R.L. Gower, Associate Warden, HDSP; P.

Statti, Correctional Counselor II (“CCII”), HDSP; S.L. Chapman, CCII, HDSP; M.

Dangler, CCII, HDSP; T. Robertson, CCII, HDSP; R. Dreith, CCII, HDSP; D. Jackson,

CCII, HDSP; M. Keating, Sergeant, HDSP; and B. Beeman, Coach, HDSP. Accordingly,

these claims and defendants will be dismissed from this action pursuant to this order.

5. Plaintiff failed to state a claim challenging the prison administrative grievance process, as

set forth in his paragraphs numbered 5 and 6. See, e.g., Smith v. Noonan, 992 F.2d 987,

989 (9th Cir.1993); see also, Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422,1430 (7th Cir.1996)

(prison grievance procedure is a procedural right that does not give rise to protected

liberty interest under the Due Process Clause). Thus, service of process was not

permitted upon the defendants named in those claims, viz., Dovey, Grannis, Broddrick,

McDonald, Perez, Cochran, Peterson, Stafford and Vanderville. Accordingly, these

claims and defendants will be dismissed from this action pursuant to this order.

6. Despite instruction by this court and opportunity to amend his complaint accordingly,

plaintiff’s paragraphs numbered 7, 37 and 43 failed to state a claim for retaliation, by

failing to set forth the five basic elements of such claims. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408

F.3d 559, 562 (9th Cir. 2005). Thus, service of process was not permitted upon the

defendants named in those claims, viz., Dovey, Grannis, Broddrick, McDonald, Perez,

Cochran, Peterson, Stafford, Vanderville, Beeman and Simpson. Accordingly, these

claims and defendants will be dismissed from this action pursuant to this order.

7. Plaintiff failed to state a due process claim based on disciplinary credit forfeiture on the

ground that he was the nonaggressor in a prison riot, as set forth in his paragraphs

numbered 2, 3, 4, 8, and 9. As the magistrate judge concluded, the California

Administrative Code accords all process that is due pursuant to the hearing on the alleged

rule violation, without establishing an independent federal constitutional right. Thus,

service of process was not permitted upon the defendants named in those claims, viz.,

Dovey, Grannis, Broddrick, McDonald, Perez, Cochran, Peterson, Stafford, and

Vanderville. Accordingly, these claims and defendants will be dismissed from this action

pursuant to this order.

Case 2:08-cv-02773-MCE-KJN Document 34 Filed 03/11/10 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

 The paragraphs omitted from reference in the magistrate judge’s order that are not 2

otherwise referenced in this order are the following: Paragraph No. 1, which does not allege a

cognizable claim; and Paragraph Nos. 40 through 43, which repeat plaintiff’s denial of access

claims set forth in Paragraph Nos. 27 through 39, which are dismissed.

3

8. Plaintiff failed to state a claim challenging the denial of contact visits, as set forth in his

paragraphs numbered 21 through 25. There is no independent constitutional right to

social visits for incarcerated persons, Kentucky Dept. of Corrections v. Thompson, 490

U.S. 454 (1989), and state law does not give rise to a liberty interest in family visitation

protectible under the federal constitution, see, e.g., Pro-Family Advocates v. Gomez, 46

Cal.App.4th 1674, 1682 (1996).

 Plaintiff has twice amended his complaint, and no further amendments are

warranted. As the magistrate judge concluded, plaintiff has properly stated only a narrow set of

claims, specifically, those challenging the prison’s policy forbidding inmates from viewing and

possessing nonobscene materials that display female nudity. These claims were identified by the

magistrate judge as “Claims 15 through 20,” as well as Claim 26 (see Magistrate Judge’s Order,

Dkt. No. 13, at 7, fn. 3). Plaintiff’s related paragraphs numbered 10 through 14 shall also be

included. Accordingly, service of process shall proceed only on these claims as to defendants

Dovey, Woodford, Wedimire, and Barron.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff ’s motion filed December 28, 2009 (Dkt. No. 25), to vacate the

magistrate judge’s screening order, is denied.

2. Plaintiff’s motion filed March 8, 2010 (Dkt. No. 33), to renew the stay in this

action pending the court’s decision on plaintiff’s motion filed December 28, 2009, is also denied.

3. All alleged claims but those set forth in Paragraphs 10 through 20, and 26,

of plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 13), are dismissed without further leave to

amend.2

4. The following defendants are dismissed with prejudice from this action: the

California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, Armoshus, Beeman, Blaylock,

Broddrick, Chapman, Cochran, Dangler, Dovey, Dreith, Felker, Flaherty, Gower, Grannis,

Case 2:08-cv-02773-MCE-KJN Document 34 Filed 03/11/10 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

4

Jackson, Keating, Kraft, McDonald, Perez, Peterson, Robertson, Stafford, Statti, Simpson, and

Vanderville.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 10, 2010

________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-02773-MCE-KJN Document 34 Filed 03/11/10 Page 4 of 4