Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03824/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03824-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCUS L. HARRISON,

Plaintiff,

v.

INSTITUTIONAL GANG OF 

INVESTIGATIONS; et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-3824 SI (pr)

ORDER OF SERVICE

INTRODUCTION

Marcus L. Harrison, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed a pro se civil rights

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint is now before the court for review pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §1915A. 

BACKGROUND

In his complaint, Harrison alleges that some of his incoming and outgoing mail has been

confiscated in violation of his First Amendment rights to freedom of association and freedom

of speech. The mail that was confiscated pertained to, e.g., the Black August Memorial, the New

Afrikan Collective Think Tank, and the New Afrikan Institute of Criminology 101. Apparently,

prison officials are of the opinion that the mail pertains to the BGF prison gang, of which

Harrison is a member, while Harrison contends the mail concerns his political and cultural

beliefs. The mail confiscation decisions apparently were made by correctional counselor D.

Hawkes and correctional sergeant G. Stewart, in the institutional gang investigations department

at Pelican Bay.

Case 3:07-cv-03824-SI Document 3 Filed 01/22/08 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Harrison also discusses in his complaint his disagreement with certain rulings by the state

court that heard his habeas petition regarding the mail. 

DISCUSSION

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of 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 which 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 id. at

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that

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

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins,

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

Prisoners enjoy a First Amendment right to send and receive mail. See Witherow v. Paff,

52 F.3d 264, 265 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407 (1989)).

Liberally construed, the allegations appear to state a claim for relief under Section 1983 for a

violation of Harrison's First Amendment rights by defendants Hawkes and Stewart who allegedly

wrongfully confiscated his incoming and outgoing mail.

The other two named defendants are two wardens, who apparently were included because

they were in charge of the prison or because they reviewed Harrison's administrative appeal.

The wardens are not liable merely because they were in charge of the prison because there is no

respondeat superior liability under Section 1983, i.e. no liability under the theory that one is

responsible for the actions or omissions of an employee. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040,

1045 (9th Cir. 1989). And they are not liable for an incorrect decision on an administrative

appeal, as a California prisoner has no due process right to a proper functioning inmate appeal

system. See generally Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the

Case 3:07-cv-03824-SI Document 3 Filed 01/22/08 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

wardens are dismissed without prejudice.

Finally, Harrison's allegations concerning his disagreements with the resolution of his

state habeas case in the Del Norte County Superior Court do not state a claim upon which relief

may be granted. A federal district court is a court of original jurisdiction and does not have

appellate-type jurisdiction to review decisions from state court. See District of Columbia Court

of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486-87 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S.

413, 416 (1923). To the extent Harrison wants to complain about what happened in his habeas

action in state court, his recourse is an appeal in state court. The allegations regarding the state

court action do not state a claim for relief under § 1983. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, 

1. The complaint states a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants

correctional officer D. Hawkes and correctional sergeant G. Stewart for First Amendment

violations in confiscating Harrison's mail. The other defendants are dismissed without prejudice.

2. The clerk shall issue a summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without

prepayment of fees, the summons, a copy of the complaint and a copy of this order upon each

of the following defendants, who allegedly are employed at Pelican Bay State Prison:

- D. Hawkes (correctional counselor II)

- G. Stewart (correctional sergeant - Institutional Gang Investigations department)

3. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the following briefing schedule for

dispositive motions is set:

a. No later than April 11, 2008, defendants must file and serve a motion for

summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If defendants are of the opinion that this case

cannot be resolved by summary judgment, they must so inform the court prior to the date the

motion is due.

b. Plaintiff's opposition to the summary judgment or other dispositive motion

must be filed with the court and served upon defendants no later than May 16, 2008. Plaintiff

Case 3:07-cv-03824-SI Document 3 Filed 01/22/08 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

must bear in mind the following notice and warning regarding summary judgment as he prepares

his opposition to any summary judgment motion:

The defendants may make a motion for summary judgment by which they

seek to have your case dismissed. A motion for summary judgment under Rule

56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your case. [¶] 

Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary

judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no

genuine issue of material fact -- that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact

that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for summary

judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end your case.

When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment that is

properly supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot simply

rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in

declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents,

as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts shown in the defendants'

declarations and documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact

for trial. If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary

judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary judgment is

granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. (See Rand v.

Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998). 

c. If defendants wish to file a reply brief, the reply brief must be filed and

served no later than June 6, 2008.

4. All communications by plaintiff with the court must be served on a defendant's

counsel by mailing a true copy of the document to defendant's counsel. The court may disregard

any document which a party files but fails to send a copy of to his opponent. Until a defendant's

counsel has been designated, plaintiff may mail a true copy of the document directly to

defendant, but once a defendant is represented by counsel, all documents must be mailed to

counsel rather than directly to that defendant. 

5. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local Rule 16 is

required before the parties may conduct discovery.

6. Plaintiff is responsible for prosecuting this case. Plaintiff must promptly keep the

court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a timely

fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Plaintiff must file a notice of change of

address in every pending case every time he is moved to a new facility. 

Case 3:07-cv-03824-SI Document 3 Filed 01/22/08 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

7. Plaintiff is cautioned that he must include the case name and case number for this

case on any document he submits to this court for consideration in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2008 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03824-SI Document 3 Filed 01/22/08 Page 5 of 5