Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01866/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01866-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAY GUTIERREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. DOMINGUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01866 DLB PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Ray Gutierrez (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on 

November 24, 2014.

1

 He names R. Dominguez, R. J. Williams, G. Doser, and R. Mayo as 

Defendants. 

A. 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. § 1915A(a). The 

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 

“frivolous or malicious,” 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). 

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge on December 10, 2014.

Case 1:14-cv-01866-GSA Document 15 Filed 09/22/15 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

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

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, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (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 that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual 

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other 

federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 

(9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); Jones v. 

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff’s allegations must link the actions or 

omissions of each named defendant to a violation of his rights; there is no respondeat superior 

liability under section 1983. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 

1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); 

Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. Plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim 

for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). 

The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 

B. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at California Correctional Institution (“CCI”) at Tehachapi, 

California, where the events giving rise to this action took place. 

Plaintiff alleges the following. After numerous attempts and after receiving his legal 

properties between the dates of March 7, 2014, to April 24, 2014, Plaintiff was finally approved for 

“PLU” status on July 4, 2014. However, PLU status was not started until October 20, 2014. 

Plaintiff made attempts on July 6, 2014, to received PLU status sooner because Plaintiff’s statute of 

Case 1:14-cv-01866-GSA Document 15 Filed 09/22/15 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

limitations date was November 20, 2014. Plaintiff alleges this was insufficient time to allow him to 

file and exhaust in the lower state courts and preserve his rights in the federal court. Plaintiff was 

denied access except for two occasions on June 13, 2014, and August 22, 2014, though he was 

denied legal copies. 

Plaintiff administratively appealed. The First Level of Appeal was processed on July 7, 

2014, and denied on August 14, 2014. The administrative appeal was denied at every level of 

review. 

On September 3, 2014, Plaintiff was moved to CCI Facility A-6-A-101 with no property or 

paper. Plaintiff made numerous requests to property officers but received no response as the only 

forms provided were single copies. The facility did not provide inmates with CDCR Form 22.

Plaintiff advised Defendant Dominguez of the statute of limitations deadline of November 

20, 2014. Plaintiff alleges that Dominguez would be responsible for contacting property officers 

Cisneros and McGurvin of the deadline; however, Dominguez failed to do so. Plaintiff contacted 

Kerin J. Ritcher, the Ombudsman out of Sacramento in order that Dominguez would be directed to 

advise Cisneros and McGurvin of the deadline and Plaintiff’s need for his legal property. Plaintiff 

also advised 4A Facility Counselor Schoolcraft to contact Dominguez to supply Plaintiff with his 

property. Plaintiff finally received his property on October 16, 2014.

Plaintiff states he personally advised Defendant Dominguez of his deadline of November 20, 

2014 along with proof in the form of letters and court documents. Defendant denied Plaintiff’s PLU 

request and did not advise Plaintiff he would have to resubmit his request. Plaintiff waited for 

Defendant Dominguez to call him on October 20, 2014, but Dominguez did not do so. Plaintiff 

requested to know why he wasn’t called and Defendant responded that Plaintiff needed to fill out a 

PLU request. Plaintiff states he had no choice but to send his petitions to family members on 

October 21, 2014, for copying, since he was repeatedly denied PLU access and the only way to 

obtain copies was while attending the legal library. 

Plaintiff then sent copies of a 602 appeal on October 29, 2014, to Dominguez regarding his 

decision not to allow Plaintiff PLU status in order to make copies. Plaintiff was then approved for 

PLU status and he attended the legal library on November 6, 2014. Plaintiff prepared a petition for 

Case 1:14-cv-01866-GSA Document 15 Filed 09/22/15 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

writ of habeas corpus which needed to be filed before the statute of limitations ran out on November 

20, 2014. Plaintiff handed his documents to Dominguez and asked that he make three copies. 

While Plaintiff had his back turned, Dominguez sifted through the papers. Defendant stopped on 

certain pages while reading the documents and stated, “You don’t need copies of these 602 

documents.” Plaintiff replied that they were exhibits, facts, and supporting documents that needed to 

be copied. Defendant began to read further and stated, “You don’t need these either.” Plaintiff 

confronted Defendant Dominguez and asked, “Why are you reading my petition?” Defendant had 

no explanation, and Plaintiff told him that he wasn’t supposed to read my outgoing petition. 

Defendant became aggressive and stated, “I’ll only make you two copies.” Plaintiff stated the 

instruction says one original and two copies are to be sent plus one for your records. Also Plaintiff 

advised Defendant that he was violating Plaintiff’s constitutional rights by reading his documents 

and denying him legal copies especially when Plaintiff was paying for them. Defendant then took 

the petition to another room out of Plaintiff’s view. Another inmate, “McCoy,” was standing next to 

Plaintiff and advised Plaintiff that Defendant was not supposed to read his petition like he did. 

Twenty minutes later, Defendant returned and stated, “I only made you two copies.” Plaintiff asked 

why only two when the instructions from the court stated two copies and one original. Defendant 

replied that the petition he provided is outdated. Plaintiff asked why he would make copies of an 

outdated petition. Defendant replied that he only needed one original and one copy as that is what is 

instructed on the revised form. As Plaintiff organized his petition, Defendant handed him mail from 

the district court.

Plaintiff returned to his cell and opened his mail. Enclosed was a revised petition for writ of 

habeas corpus with instructions that Plaintiff must file an original and two copies. Plaintiff 

complains that Defendant did not provide him with the proper amount of copies with the intent that 

Plaintiff’s habeas petition would be rejected as improperly filed. 

Later, Defendant arrived at Plaintiff’s cell door with legal mail for Plaintiff’s cell mate. 

Plaintiff spoke to Defendant and showed him the instruction which stated that an original and two 

copies of the petition must be filed. Defendant asked, “Where’d you get that?” Plaintiff replied that 

it was in the legal mail Defendant gave him from the district court. Plaintiff asked Defendant if he 

Case 1:14-cv-01866-GSA Document 15 Filed 09/22/15 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

could take the petition and make three copies of the petition and one copy of the supporting 

documents as Plaintiff needed to send it out before the statute of limitations expired. Defendant 

rejected the request and told Plaintiff he needed to put in a request to attend the legal library, and 

Defendant would call him in to finish copies. 

On November 11, 2014, Plaintiff received a response from Defendant Dominguez that if 

Plaintiff wanted to attend legal library, he would need to send an order stating Plaintiff needs 

original and two copies. On November 11, 2014, Plaintiff sent the revised petition along with the 

only copy of supporting documents in the hope that Defendant would receive, copy, and return it to 

Plaintiff the same day. On November 12, 2014, Defendant arrived at the cell door with legal mail. 

Plaintiff inquired about his request for copies. Defendant stated he had not received the request yet. 

On November 17, 2014, Defendant brought legal mail to Plaintiff. Plaintiff asked Defendant if he’d 

received the request yet, and Defendant replied “No.” 

Plaintiff then inquired about the documents with the floor officers. Officer Nevarez said they 

had been sent to the legal library. Again on November 19, 2014, Defendant brought legal mail to 

Plaintiff and advised Plaintiff that he still had not received the request along with the attached 

documents. Plaintiff then sent his request through Officer Nevarez.

Plaintiff request injunctive relief ordering Defendants Dominguez, Williams, Doser, and 

Mayo to stop depriving Plaintiff of his rights to access the courts and the legal library. Plaintiff 

further asks for compensatory damages in the amount of $50,000.00 and punitive damages of 

$20,000.00 against each Defendant.

C. DISCUSSION

1. Linkage

Under section 1983, Plaintiff must link the named defendants to the participation in the 

violation at issue. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676-77, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1948-49 (2009); 

Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of 

Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 

2002). Liability may not be imposed under a theory of respondeat superior, and some causal 

connection between the conduct of each named defendant and the violation at issue must exist. 

Case 1:14-cv-01866-GSA Document 15 Filed 09/22/15 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

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Lemire v. California Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 

(9th Cir. 2013); Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 915-16 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc); Starr v. 

Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101 (2012). 

Here, Plaintiff names Defendants Williams, Doser, and Mayo, but he fails to link any of 

these Defendants to participation in the alleged violation at issue. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a 

claim against Defendants Williams, Doser, and Mayo. 

2. Access to the Courts and Law Library

Inmates have a fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 518 

U.S. 343, 346, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 2177 (1996); Phillips v. Hust, 588 F.3d 652, 655 (9th Cir. 2009). 

The right of access to the courts is merely the right to bring to court a grievance the inmate wishes to 

present, and is limited to direct criminal appeals, habeas petitions, and civil rights actions. Lewis, 

518 U.S. at 354. While Plaintiff has a constitutional right to access the courts, the interferences 

complained of by Plaintiff must have caused him to sustain an actual injury. Christopher v. Harbury, 

536 U.S. 403, 415, 122 S.Ct. 2179 (2002); Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351; Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 

342 (9th Cir. 2010); Phillips, 588 F.3d at 655; Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 936 (9th Cir. 2004). 

The absence of an injury precludes an access claim, and Plaintiff’s complaint is devoid of any facts 

suggesting any injury occurred. Harbury, 536 U.S. at 415-16; Jones, 393 F.3d at 936. 

Further, inmates do not have the right to a law library or legal assistance. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 

351. Law libraries and legal assistance programs are only the means of ensuring access to the 

courts. Id. Because inmates do not have “an abstract, freestanding right to a law library or legal 

assistance, an inmate cannot establish relevant actual injury by establishing that his prison’s law 

library or legal assistance program is subpar in some theoretical sense.” Id.

Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a claim of denial of access to the courts.

D. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 

1983. The Court will provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to file an amended complaint. Akhtar v. 

Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what 

Case 1:14-cv-01866-GSA Document 15 Filed 09/22/15 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

each named Defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s federal rights and liability may 

not be imposed on supervisory personnel under the theory of mere respondeat superior, Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 676-77; Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-07 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101 

(2012). Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to 

relief above the speculative level. . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). 

Finally, an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be “complete in itself without 

reference to the prior or superceded pleading,” Local Rule 220. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim

under section 1983;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an 

amended complaint; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this 

action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 22, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01866-GSA Document 15 Filed 09/22/15 Page 7 of 7