Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-07618/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-07618-0/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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.06\Isgrigg7618_dwlta-2.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD LAWRENCE ISGRIGG,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

CDC, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-07618 JW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, and inmate of Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”), initiated a pro

se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, by filing a letter to a judge of the

Eastern District of California. The case was transferred to this court because SVSP

is located within the venue of this district. Plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis

status. 

The Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, directing plaintiff to

present his claims in a proper formal pleading in accordance with the federal and

local rules. The Court provided plaintiff with the court’s form for civil rights

complaints for this purpose. Plaintiff was advised that the amended complaint

Case 5:06-cv-07618-JW Document 16 Filed 03/20/08 Page 1 of 8
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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.06\Isgrigg7618_dwlta-2.wpd 2

supersedes the initial complaint and may not incorporate by reference any parts of

the original complaint. On April 6, 2007, plaintiff filed an amended complaint

which is now before the Court for preliminary screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915A(a).

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which

prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable

claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is

frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or

“seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. §

1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, however. 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 alleged violation was committed by a person acting

under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under § 1983 if the

plaintiff can show that the defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a

federally protected right. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988);

Harris v. City of Roseburg, 664 F.2d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 1981). A person deprives

another of a constitutional right within the meaning of § 1983 if he does an

affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative act or omits to perform an act

which he is legally required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff

Case 5:06-cv-07618-JW Document 16 Filed 03/20/08 Page 2 of 8
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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.06\Isgrigg7618_dwlta-2.wpd 3

complains. See Leer, 844 F.2d at 633; Robins v. Meecham, 60 F.3d 1436, 1442 (9th

Cir. 1995). To state a claim a plaintiff must show a specific constitutional or federal

guarantee safeguarding the interests that have been invaded. See Paul v. Davis, 424

U.S. 693, 697 (1976). 

B. Claims

According to the complaint, plaintiff was found incompetent to stand trial in

January 2006, and was placed in Atascadero State Hospital. On March 16, 2006, he

was transferred to Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) and placed in the

administrative segregation unit (“ASU”) rather than the Enhanced Outpatient

Program (“EOP”) due to enemy concerns. On March 23, 2006, plaintiff appeared

before the Individual Classification Committee (“ICC”), which “put [plaintiff] up for

transfer.” Plaintiff does not state where ICC intended to transfer him. The transfer

was denied in review with the stipulation that ICC evaluate how long before plaintiff

would be transferred to the Department of Mental Health (“DMH”). Thereafter,

plaintiff’s confinement in ASU was repeatedly extended, once in April 2006 for 60-

90 days and a second time after CCI Herrerra became the new counselor for Facility

D, buildings 1 & 2. On March 16, 2007, plaintiff was placed in the infirmary for a

sixth suicide attempt. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the

365 days he was unlawfully confined in ASU. Plaintiff alleges that he suffered pain

and suffering, as well as “immorality of personality [sic],” “deprobation [sic] of

character,” and “slander of [his] name.” (Compl. 3-4.) 

a. Transfer

Liberally construed, to the extent plaintiff is alleging he was denied his

right to a transfer, the claim must be DISMISSED because it is well-established that

prisoners have no constitutional right to incarceration in a particular prison. See

Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 244-48 (1983). A prisoner’s liberty interests are

Case 5:06-cv-07618-JW Document 16 Filed 03/20/08 Page 3 of 8
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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.06\Isgrigg7618_dwlta-2.wpd 4

sufficiently extinguished by his conviction that the state may generally confine or

transfer him, or not transfer him in the case of plaintiff, to any of its institutions, to

prisons in another state or to federal prisons, without offending the Constitution. 

See Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 530 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing Meachum, 427 U.S.

at 225) (intrastate prison transfer does not implicate Due Process Clause), and Olim,

461 U.S. at 244-48 (interstate prison transfer does not implicate Due Process

Clause)); see also Stewart v. McManus, 924 F.2d 138 (8th Cir. 1991) (no due

process rights implicated in transfer from state to federal prison). “It is well settled

that the decision where to house inmates is at the core of prison administrators’

expertise.” McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 39 (2002). 

b. Inhumane Conditions in ASU

Plaintiff alludes to being confined in ASU “wrongfully [and]

inhumanely.” (Compl. 4.) The Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons,

but neither does it permit inhumane ones. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832

(1994 ). The treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which

he is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment. Helling v.

McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993). In its prohibition of “cruel and unusual

punishment,” the Eighth Amendment places restraints on prison officials, who may

not, for example, use excessive force against prisoners. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 6-7. 

The Amendment also imposes duties on these officials, who must provide all

prisoners with the basic necessities of life such as food, clothing, shelter, sanitation,

medical care and personal safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832; DeShaney v. Winnebago

County Dep’t of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 199-200 (1989); Hoptowit v. Ray, 682

F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 1982). 

A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment when two requirements are

met: (1) the deprivation alleged must be, objectively, sufficiently serious, and (2) the

Case 5:06-cv-07618-JW Document 16 Filed 03/20/08 Page 4 of 8
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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.06\Isgrigg7618_dwlta-2.wpd 5

prison official possesses a sufficiently culpable state of mind. Farmer, 511 U.S. at

834. 

Plaintiff states only the he wants relief for the 365 days he spent in ASU

“wrongfully [and] inhumanely.” Plaintiff will be given leave to amend the

complaint to include sufficient facts to support his claim and the alleged

constitutional violations he suffered in accordance with Farmer. 511 U.S. at 832.

Plaintiff must allege facts supporting his claim against each defendant

separately in his amended complaint showing his entitlement to relief from each

defendant. See Leer, 844 F.2d at 634. Plaintiff should list the constitutional right he

has, describe what the defendants did or failed to do, and describe how each

defendant’s acts or omissions caused him injury. Plaintiff must be careful to allege

facts showing the basis for liability for each individual defendant. He should not

refer to the defendants as a group, i.e., “the defendants;” rather, he should identify

each involved defendant by name and link each of them to a specific claim by

explaining what each defendant did or failed to do that caused a violation of his

constitutional rights. 

c. Defamation

Plaintiff’s claims that he is suffering from “immorality of personality

[sic],” “deprobation [sic] of character,” and “slander of [his] name” may be attempts

to allege defamation of character. However, defamation alone does not state a

constitutional claim, even when done under color of state law. See Paul v. Davis,

424 U.S. at 701-710; Rutledge v. Arizona Board of Regents, 660 F.2d at1353; see

also Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981) (no subject matter

jurisdiction over claim of slander by police officer because no violation of federal

right). Damage to reputation is not actionable under § 1983 unless it is accompanied

by “some more tangible interests.” See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. at 701; Patton v.

Case 5:06-cv-07618-JW Document 16 Filed 03/20/08 Page 5 of 8
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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.06\Isgrigg7618_dwlta-2.wpd 6

County of Kings, 857 F.2d 1379, 1381 (9th Cir. 1988). To state a claim for

defamation under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege loss of a constitutionally protected

property or liberty interest in conjunction with the allegation of injury to reputation. 

See Cooper v. Dupnik, 924 F.2d 1520, 1532 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Vanelli v.

Reynolds Sch. Dist. No. 7, 667 F.2d 773, 777-78 (9th Cir. 1982)), aff’d on this

ground on reh’g en banc, 963 F.2d 1220, 1235 n.6 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied,

506 U.S. 953 (1992). A cognizable claim is alleged where the injury to reputation

caused the denial of a federally protected right. See id.; see, e.g., Stevens v. Rifkin,

608 F. Supp. 710, 726-27 (N.D. Cal. 1984) (where plaintiff alleged that prosecutor

disseminated accusations to press in attempt to deprive plaintiff of his 6th

Amendment right to impartial jury panel, this stated claim under § 1983). Or a

cognizable claim is satisfied under § 1983 where injury to reputation was inflicted in

connection with a federally protected right. See Cooper, 924 F.2d at 1532; see, e.g.,

Stevens, 608 F. Supp. at 727 (plaintiff stated proper claim under § 1983 where

defamatory statements were made in connection with alleged unconstitutional arrest

and prosecution).

Although plaintiff has not alleged the defamation was connected to, or

resulted in the denial of, a federally protected constitutional right, this claim will be

DISMISSED with leave to AMEND to state a cognizable defamation claim if he can

do so in good faith. Plaintiff must provide supporting facts as to each defendant

demonstrating the alleged constitutional violation connected with the alleged

defamation.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons,

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 

Case 5:06-cv-07618-JW Document 16 Filed 03/20/08 Page 6 of 8
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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.06\Isgrigg7618_dwlta-2.wpd 7

Within thirty (30) days of the date this order is filed, plaintiff may file an SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT using the court’s form civil rights complaint. Plaintiff

shall complete the form, and include in the caption both the case number of this

action (No. C 06-07618 JW (PR)), and the phrase “SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT.” 

2. The second amended complaint supersedes the initial complaint and

first amended complaint and may not incorporate by reference any parts of those

complaints; plaintiff must include in the second amended complaint all the

allegations and claims he wishes to present. If plaintiff fails to timely file an

amended complaint in conformity with this order, the complaint will be dismissed. 

3. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must 

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,

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), for failure to prosecute.

4. The clerk shall enclose two copies of the court’s form complaint, 

with instructions, with the copy of this order to plaintiff. 

DATED: JAMES WARE

United States District Judge 

March 19, 2008

Case 5:06-cv-07618-JW Document 16 Filed 03/20/08 Page 7 of 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD LAWRENCE ISGRIGG,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CDC, et al.,

Defendants. /

Case Number: CV06-07618 JW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on , I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the

attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s)

hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into

an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Richard Lawrence Isgrigg K78618

SVSP

P. O. Box 1050

Soledad, Ca 93960-1050

Dated: 

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Elizabeth Garcia, Deputy Clerk

3/20/2008 3/20/2008 /s/

Case 5:06-cv-07618-JW Document 16 Filed 03/20/08 Page 8 of 8