Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01331/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01331-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES CATO, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS AND

REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01331-LJO-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FINDING THAT PLAINTIFF STATES 

C O G N I Z A B L E C L A I M S A N D

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN

CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

(ECF No. 14)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30)

DAYS

SCREENING ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 16, 2012, Plaintiff James Cato, Jr., a state prisoner proceeding pro se

and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No.

1.)

On November 30, 2012, Plaintiff’s Complaint was screened and dismissed, with

leave to amend, for failure to state a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff filed a First

Amended Complaint (ECF No. 12) which the Court found stated a single cognizable claim;

1

Case 1:12-cv-01331-LJO-MJS Document 15 Filed 03/29/13 Page 1 of 9
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

all other claims were dismissed with leave to amend. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff was given

leave to amend or proceed on his cognizable claim alone. (Id.) Plaintiff elected to file a

Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is

now before the Court for screening.

II. 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, malicious,” or 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). “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). 

Section 1983 “provides a cause of action for the ‘deprivation of any rights, privileges,

or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws’ of the United States.” Wilder v.

Virginia Hosp. Ass’n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Section 1983

is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating

federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989).

III. SUMMARY OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

The Second Amended Complaint names the following individuals as Defendants:

(1) Kathleen Dickinson, Director, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

2

Case 1:12-cv-01331-LJO-MJS Document 15 Filed 03/29/13 Page 2 of 9
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

(CDCR); (2) K. Nash, Correctional Captain, Pleasant Valley State Prison (PVSP); and (3)

W. Brambaugh, Correctional Officer, PVSP.

Plaintiff alleges the following:

Defendant Dickinson has promulgated and enforced California Code of Regulations,

title 15, section 3006(c)(15)(A), which prohibits inmates from possessing obscene material. 

Section 3006(c)(15)(A) adopts the definition of “obscene” provided in California Penal

Code section 311 yet omits unspecified language and directives contained in section 311. 

Prison officials have cited this section as authority to confiscate sexually explicit

photographs and advertisements addressed to Plaintiff. The obscenity regulation violates

Plaintiff’s First Amendment right to receive mail because it is not reasonably related to a

legitimate penological interest. (Compl. at 4.)

On August 20, 2008, Defendant Nash authorized the confiscation of three

photographs from Plaintiff’s mail at his own discretion and not pursuant to any published

regulation. (Id.) According to the mail room contraband form, attached to the amended

complaint, the photographs were blackened and altered. No operative regulation was cited

and no other reason was given for the confiscation. (Id. at 22.)

On March 12, 2009, Defendant Nash again directed the confiscation of Plaintiff’s

mail: copies of “XXL” magazine were deemed contraband because of depictions of gang

related gestures. (Id. at 4, 5.) The confiscation form, signed by Defendant Nash, states

“various pages contain photographs of gang related hand gestures.” (Id. at 24.) Plaintiff

appealed the confiscation via the inmate grievance process. He argued that no specific

gang signs were identified in the magazine. The appeal response refers to the reasoning

provided in the confiscation form and states “[t]he mail room does not identify specific gang

3

Case 1:12-cv-01331-LJO-MJS Document 15 Filed 03/29/13 Page 3 of 9
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

or gang related hand gestures.” (Id. at 25.) In subsequent appeals Plaintiff reiterated his

argument that no prison official actually identified a gang symbol. Plaintiff’s appeals were

denied. (Id. at 25, 26.)

On May 26, 2009, Defendant Brambaugh intercepted four musical discs in Plaintiff’s

incoming mail. (Id. at 5.) Pursuant to PVSP policy, compact discs with explicit lyrics

promoting or depicting gang activity, unlawful behavior, or any matter that would undermine

prison security, are to be confiscated as contraband. (Id. at 31.) Brambaugh did not make

a finding that the CDs contained prohibited content; instead, he stated that “compact discs

are not authorized.” (Id. at 28.) The confiscation of Plaintiff’s CDs served no penological

interest and therefore violated his First Amendment rights. (Id. at 5.)

Plaintiff asserts that the promulgation and enforcement of California Code of

Regulations, title 15, section 3006(c)(15)(A) violated his First Amendment rights. He also

maintains that each instance of confiscated mail violated his First Amendment rights.

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Section 1983

To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 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. 

See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243,

1245 (9th Cir. 1987).

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

4

Case 1:12-cv-01331-LJO-MJS Document 15 Filed 03/29/13 Page 4 of 9
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

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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)

(citing Bell Atlantic 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. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a defendant committed

misconduct and, while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. 

Id. at 678-79.

B. First Amendment

While prisoners have a First Amendment right to send and receive mail, Witherow

v. Paff, 52 F.3d 264, 265 (9th Cir. 1995) (quotation marks omitted), the right to receive mail

is subject to substantial limitation and a regulation or policy infringing on the right will be

upheld if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests, Prison Legal News v.

Lehman, 397 F.3d 692, 699 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89

(1987)). In determining the reasonableness of the regulation, a court must consider the

following factors: (1) whether there is a “valid, rational connection between the regulation

and the legitimate government interest put forward to justify it,” (2) “whether there are

alternative means of exercising the right,” (3) the impact that the “accommodation of the

asserted constitutional right will have on guards and other inmates,” and (4) “the absence

of ready alternatives.” Turner, 482 U.S. at 89-90.

1. Director Dickinson

Plaintiff alleges that Director Dickinson promulgated California Code of Regulations,

title 15, section 3006(c)(15)(A), prohibiting inmates from possessing obscene material. 

Section 3006(c)(15)(A) allegedly violates Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights because the

5

Case 1:12-cv-01331-LJO-MJS Document 15 Filed 03/29/13 Page 5 of 9
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

section borrows the definition of obscene from California Penal Code § 311 incompletely,

“omitt[ing] language that binds the state.” (Compl. at 4.) This is the only allegation in

support of Plaintiff’s conclusion that the regulation violates his rights. The amended

complaint does not explain how an incomplete reference to a section of the penal code

makes section 3006(c)(15)(A) unconstitutional.

Plaintiff also alleges that the regulation violates his constitutional rights because it

is not reasonably related to any legitimate penological interest. However, Plaintiff fails to

support this conclusion with any factual allegations or explanation of his basis for so

alleging with regard to a regulation that seems on its face to be designed to prohibit

material which by definition is not protected under the First Amendment. See Ashcroft v.

Free Speech Coal., 535 U.S. 234, 245-46 (2002) (“The freedom of speech has its limits;

it does not embrace certain categories of speech, including . . . obscenity . . . .”) 

Conclusory allegations are not sufficient to state a claim. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Similar obscenity regulations and portions of the regulation at issue have been

found constitutional. See, Mauro v. Arpaio, 188 F.3d 1054, 1058–63 (9th Cir. 1999) (en

banc) cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1018 (2000) (determined that a jail policy prohibiting inmate

possession of sexually explicit material was reasonably related to legitimate penological

interests and did not violate the First Amendment); Nelson v. Woodford, 249 Fed. Appx.

529 (9th Cir. 2007) (affirming dismissal of California prisoner's First Amendment claim

based upon prison's denial of his access to literature with depictions of frontal nudity

pursuant to Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15 §§ 3006(c)(15) and (17) because regulations were

reasonably related to legitimate penological interests under the Turner factors.).

The Court has twice provided Plaintiff with the requisite pleading standards and an

6

Case 1:12-cv-01331-LJO-MJS Document 15 Filed 03/29/13 Page 6 of 9
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

opportunity to amend this specific claim. Plaintiff has remained unable to state a claim. 

Nothing in the instant pleading suggests that further leave to amend would yield a different

result. Plaintiff’s claim against Director Dickinson should be dismissed with prejudice.

2. Captain Nash

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Nash twice confiscated his mail in violation of his

First Amendment rights. On August 20, 2008, Nash allegedly authorized the confiscation

of three photographs. The contraband form indicates that the photographs were blackened

and altered, but no other reason is provided for the confiscation and no regulation or rule

is cited. The factual allegations support Plaintiff’s conclusion that Defendant Nash acted

arbitrarily and without a reasonable relation to a legitimate penological interest. Plaintiff

therefore states a First Amendment claim. Prison Legal News, 397 F.3d at 699.

On March 12, 2009, Nash signed a notice of disapproval confiscating Plaintiff’s

magazine because various pages contained photographs depicting gang related hand

gestures. Plaintiff appealed the decision, arguing that no gang signs were actually

identified. The appeal response indicated that, as a matter of practice, specific gang

gestures are not identified.

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Nash confiscated incoming mail without actually

identifying a gang symbol. The inmate appeal documents attached to the amended

complaint appear to support Plaintiff’s assertion. Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that his mail

was confiscated without an actual determination that it contained illicit depictions. “[A]

regulation cannot be sustained where the logical connection between the regulation and

the asserted goal is so remote as to render the policy arbitrary or irrational.” Turner, 482

U.S. at 89-90. Liberally construed, the allegations appear to state a First Amendment

7

Case 1:12-cv-01331-LJO-MJS Document 15 Filed 03/29/13 Page 7 of 9
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

claim against Defendant Nash. See, e.g. Harrison v. Milligan, 2010 WL 1957389, *2 (N.D.

Cal. May 14, 2010); Martinez v. Tilton, 2008 WL 131697 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2008).

3. Officer Brambaugh

Finally, Plaintiff alleges that on May 26, 2009 Defendant Brambaugh intercepted

four musical discs in Plaintiff’s incoming mail. Plaintiff appealed the confiscation, arguing

that the CDs did not contain prohibited content and therefore should not have been seized. 

The inmate appeal response authored by Brambaugh states that all CDs are prohibited

pursuant to a PVSP policy memorandum dated September 18, 2007. A copy of that

memorandum is attached to the Complaint. It does not authorize a wholesale ban on CDs. 

According to the document, compact discs with explicit lyrics promoting or depicting gang

activity, unlawful behavior, or any matter that would undermine prison security are to be

confiscated according to PVSP policy.

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Brambaugh arbitrarily confiscated the CDs. 

Brambaugh’s own statement is not inconsistent with this conclusion. Plaintiff has alleged

that the Defendant’s conduct was not reasonably related to legitimate penological interests

and therefore states a First Amendment claim. Prison Legal News, 397 F.3d at 699.

V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court finds thatPlaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint states cognizable claims

against Defendants Nash and Brambaugh for the violation of Plaintiff’s First Amendment

rights. Plaintiff has failed to state a First Amendment claim against Defendant Dickinson. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff be allowed to proceed on his First Amendment claims against

Defendants Nash and Brambaugh; and

8

Case 1:12-cv-01331-LJO-MJS Document 15 Filed 03/29/13 Page 8 of 9
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

2. Plaintiff’s remaining First Amendment claim against Defendant Dickinson be

dismissed with prejudice.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Within thirty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party

may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 

Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the

objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2013 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9

Case 1:12-cv-01331-LJO-MJS Document 15 Filed 03/29/13 Page 9 of 9