Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01936/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01936-2/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

GREGORY ELL SHEHEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

LAURIE HILL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01936 AWI DLB PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Gregory Ell Shehee (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on November 21,

2013. He names Unit Supervisor Laurie Hill, Shift Lead Samantha Perryman, Unit Supervisor Chris 

Grijalva, Behavior Specialist Matt Collins, Psychiatrist Dr. Joseph, Unit Supervisor Samantha 

Perryman, Shift Lead Christy Beeler, W.R.P. Nurse Stephanie Mulligan, P.T. Sajeel, and Trust 

Officers Yvonne Beuster and Debi Phillips 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 

Case 1:13-cv-01936-AWI-DLB Document 10 Filed 10/20/14 Page 1 of 6
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

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 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 detained at the Coalinga State Hospital (“CSH”) where the events giving 

rise to this action took place. 

Plaintiff alleges the following. Over time, Plaintiff had acquired evidence, legal materials 

and documents for use during trial in his criminal cases. He kept these items in grey storage bins. In 

September of 2011, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Hill, Perryman, Grijalva, and Collins had 

Case 1:13-cv-01936-AWI-DLB Document 10 Filed 10/20/14 Page 2 of 6
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

possession of 34 bundles of his legal documents while court proceedings were in process. Plaintiff 

alleges that Defendants Hill, Perryman, Grijalva, and Collins shredded the 34 bundles while Plaintiff 

was being transported. Plaintiff states he was informed on July 5, 2012, by Sergeant Maylin that all 

34 of the envelopes had been destroyed because of Plaintiff’s pending lawsuits against CSH.

On October 2, 2012, Plaintiff had completed a list of witnesses and addresses of witnesses as 

well as subpoenas for those witnesses and took them to the CSH Copy and Mail Center for mailing. 

These documents were then seized as contraband. The staff refused to serve any of his legal 

documents on the district attorneys, attorneys general, or any other party, because these individuals 

are not considered a “court” and indigent mail is only processed at CSH expense to a “court.”

On November 10, 2013, Plaintiff was taken before the W.R.P. treatment team. Present at the 

meeting were Defendants Joseph, Perryman, Beeler, Mulligan, and Sajeel. Plaintiff alleges that at 

the meeting, Perryman began threatening Plaintiff by stating, “I have to read your legal documents, 

and I have to count them, before I will decide if you will be allowed to make legal copies for the 

court and for the attorneys.” Plaintiff states that Perryman knew or should have known that Plaintiff 

had an ongoing case before the Fresno County Superior Court. Plaintiff alleges that Perryman ought 

to have known that her interference, confiscation of legal papers, shredding of legal papers, and 

threatening to obstruct his photocopying until she had personally taken charge of all legal documents 

and examined them was an obstruction of justice and a crime.

On November 12, 2013, Plaintiff complained to Sgt. Espinoza of Perryman’s confiscation of 

his legal documents and obstruction of photocopying services. Sgt. Espinoza stated he would “look 

into it.” Plaintiff advised Espinoza that Perryman had confiscated and shredded 34 bundles of his 

legal documents. Espinoza responded that her behavior seemed to be an ongoing problem. Plaintiff 

also informed Espinoza that Defendants Beuster and Phillips may be involved, in particular as it 

relates to denial of his legal photocopying and Perryman’s demand to inspect all of his legal papers. 

Plaintiff also states that Phillips had Plaintiff sign a paper which signed over 50% of his lifetime 

earnings in order to be able to do legal photocopying as an indigent civil detainee and pro per 

defendant. 

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to stop all of the State employees named above from 

Case 1:13-cv-01936-AWI-DLB Document 10 Filed 10/20/14 Page 3 of 6
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

obstructing justice, destroying evidence, threatening witnesses, and tampering with photocopying 

and legal documents. Plaintiff also seeks punitive damages in the amount of ninety thousand dollars 

($90,000) against each Defendant. 

C. DISCUSSION

1. Access to Courts

Inmates have a fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts and prison officials 

may not actively interfere with their right to litigate. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 346, 116 S.Ct. 

2174 (1996); Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir. 2011); Phillips v. Hust, 588 F.3d 

652, 655 (9th Cir. 2009). However, to state a viable claim for relief, Plaintiff must show that he 

suffered an actual injury, which requires “actual prejudice to contemplated or existing litigation.” 

Nevada Dep’t of Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Lewis, 518 U.S. at 

348) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 1823 (2012); Christopher v. 

Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415, 122 S.Ct. 2179 (2002); Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351; Phillips, 588 F.3d at 

655. 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Hill, Perryman, Grijalva, and Collins shredded 34 bundles of 

his legal documents. Plaintiff alleges that Perryman knew or should have known that he had an 

ongoing case in the Fresno County Superior Court. He claims that Perryman ought to have known 

that her confiscation and shredding of legal papers, and obstruction of photocopying, was an 

obstruction of justice. 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. 

Plaintiff further contends that Defendants Beuster and Phillips “may be involved.” This is 

insufficient to state a claim. In addition, Plaintiff does not establish that he suffered an actual injury.

2. Deprivation of Property without Procedural Due Process

The Due Process Clause protects prisoners from being deprived of property without due 

process of law, Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974), and prisoners have a protected 

interest in their personal property, Hansen v. May, 502 F.2d 728, 730 (9th Cir.1974). However, 

deprivation of an inmate’s property negligently or intentionally without a pre-deprivation hearing do 

Case 1:13-cv-01936-AWI-DLB Document 10 Filed 10/20/14 Page 4 of 6
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

not state a due process claim under section 1983 if the deprivation was random and unauthorized, 

see Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535-44 (1981) (state employee negligently lost prisoner’s hobby 

kit), overruled in part on other grounds, Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-31 (1986); Hudson 

v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (intentional destruction of inmate’s property), because 

California provides an adequate state post-deprivation remedy, see Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 

113, 128-29 (1990) (where state cannot foresee and therefore provide meaningful hearing prior to 

deprivation, statutory provision for post-deprivation hearing or common law tort remedy for 

erroneous deprivation satisfies due process); Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533.

An authorized, intentional deprivation of property is actionable under the Due Process 

Clause. See Hudson , 468 U.S. at 532, n. 13 (1984) (citing Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 

U.S. 422 (1982)); Quick v. Jones, 754 F.2d 1521, 1524 (9th Cir.1985). An authorized deprivation is 

one carried out pursuant to established state procedures, regulations, or statutes. Logan v. 

Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. at 436; Piatt v. McDougall, 773 F.2d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir.1985); 

see also Knudson v. City of Ellensburg, 832 F.2d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir.1987). Authorized 

deprivations of property are permissible if carried out pursuant to a regulation that is reasonably 

related to a legitimate penological interest. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). “‘Ordinarily, 

due process of law requires [notice and] an opportunity for some kind of hearing prior to the 

deprivation of a ... property interest.’” Halverson v. Skagit County, 42 F.3d 1257, 1260 (9th 

Cir.1995) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

In this action, Plaintiff appears to contend that Defendants Hill, Perryman, Grijalva, and 

Collins seized and disposed of 34 bundles of his property. The circumstances under which the 

property was seized and disposed of is unclear. It is unknown whether Plaintiff is alleging that

Defendants failed to follow established rules and regulations for characterization, possession and 

disposition of his property, and/or intentionally destroyed his property despite his requests to keep it, 

or if Plaintiff is alleging that Defendants did not tell him that any of his property was prohibited, or 

give him proper notice prior to the destruction of his property. Plaintiff will be provided an 

opportunity to file an amended complaint to clarify and present a cognizable claim. 

The Court finds that Plaintiff fails to state a claim against any other Defendants.

Case 1:13-cv-01936-AWI-DLB Document 10 Filed 10/20/14 Page 5 of 6
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

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 

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: October 17, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01936-AWI-DLB Document 10 Filed 10/20/14 Page 6 of 6