Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02360/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02360-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DALE T. CLEMENTS, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

EDWARD J. CADEN, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-2360 JSW (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, a prisoner of the State of California incarcerated at Salinas Valley State

Prison, filed this civil rights complaint. The Court dismissed the complaint with leave to

amend (docket no. 6), and Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (docket no. 7). The

Court finds the Amended Complaint fails to set forth cognizable claims under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. Accordingly, the Court will DISMISS the Amended Complaint.

DISCUSSION

I 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. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.
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

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).

II Amended Complaint

To state a claim arising under federal law, it must be clear from the face of 

Plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint that there is a federal question. Easton v. Crossland

Mortgage Corp., 114 F.3d 979, 982 (9th Cir. 1997). While a plaintiff is not required to

plead his evidence “or specific factual details not ascertainable in advance of discovery,”

Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1340 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S.

1054 (1987), a pleading will not be sufficient to state a claim under § 1983 if the

allegations are mere conclusions, Kennedy v. H & M Landing, Inc., 529 F.2d 987, 989

(9th Cir. 1976). 

Plaintiff complains that he has been denied a request to transfer to another prison

facility to be closer to his sister while there is an illness in the family. This grievance

does not set forth a constitutional violation sufficient to state a claim. As discussed in

the earlier Order Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend, prisoners have no

constitutional right to incarceration in a particular institution. See Olim v. Wakinekona,

461 U.S. 238, 244-48 (1983); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 223-27 (1976). A

prisoner's liberty interests are sufficiently extinguished by his conviction that the state

may generally confine or transfer him 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 224-25) (intrastate prison transfer

does not implicate Due Process Clause). 

Plaintiff also complains that he has been denied a timely appeal of his transfer
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

request. This grievance also fails to state a claim. As discussed in this Court’s earlier

order, there is no constitutional right to a prison administrative appeal or grievance

system. See Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 898

(1988); see also Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1430 (7th Cir. 1996). The

California Code of Regulations, title 15 section 3084 et seq., grants state prisoners a

purely procedural right: the right to have a prison appeal. A provision that merely

provides procedural requirements, even if mandatory, cannot form the basis of a

constitutionally cognizable liberty interest. See Smith v. Noonan, 992 F.2d 987, 989 (9th

Cir. 1993); see also Antonelli, 81 F.3d at 1430 (prison grievance procedure is procedural

right that does not give rise to protected liberty interest requiring procedural protections

of Due Process Clause); Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993) (same). A

prison official's failure to process grievances, without more, accordingly is not actionable

under § 1983. See Buckley, 997 F.2d at 495. As such, Plaintiff has not stated a claim

regarding the appeal of his grievance.

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not allege any violation of a federally

protected right and therefore fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. §

1915A(b). Cf. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1995) (a complaint

that fails to identify any constitutional or statutory right that was violated, or assert any

basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction or waiver of sovereign immunity, is

frivolous). The Court has already given Plaintiff leave to amend his original complaint

to state a cognizable claim under § 1983. As it appears Plaintiff cannot cure the defects

of his claims, the Amended Complaint will be dismissed without leave to amend. 

//

//

//
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

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend. The

Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 12, 2005

 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge
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

Clement,

Plaintiff,

 v.

Caden et al,

Defendant.

 /

Case Number: CV04-02360 JSW 

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 October 13, 2005, 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.

Dale T. Clement K-75265

S.V.S.P

P.O. Box 1040

Soledad, Ca 93960

Dated: October 13, 2005

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk