Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00357/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00357-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LONG WAY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

20 UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:12cv00357 AWI DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN 

CLAIMS

TWENTY-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE

Plaintiff Long Way (“Plaintiff”), a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil 

action on March 9, 2012, pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau 

of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by 

federal actors. Plaintiff paid the filing fee and is therefore not proceeding in forma pauperis.

On March 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) pursuant to the 

Court’s prior screening order. As he did in his original complaint, Plaintiff again named “20 

Unknown Name Employees of Federal Bureau of Prisons-Atwater.”1 

 

1

Plaintiff has submitted a request for subpoena to discover the names of the unknown Defendants. That request, as 

well as the pending Order to Show Cause, will be addressed by separate order.

Case 1:12-cv-00357-AWI-DLB Document 19 Filed 04/22/13 Page 1 of 8
2

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

A. LEGAL STANDARD

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 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.

Bivens actions and actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “are identical save for the 

replacement of a state actor under § 1983 by a federal actor under Bivens.” Van Strum v. Lawn, 

940 F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir.1991). Under Bivens, a plaintiff may sue a federal officer in his or her 

individual capacity for damages for violating the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Bivens, 

403 U.S. at 397. To state a claim a plaintiff must allege: (1) that a right secured by the 

Constitution of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed 

by a federal actor.

Case 1:12-cv-00357-AWI-DLB Document 19 Filed 04/22/13 Page 2 of 8
3

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

Plaintiff must also demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the 

deprivation of his rights. Id. at 1949. This requires the presentation of factual allegations 

sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50; 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, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

B. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff names 20 Unknown Employees of Federal Bureau of Prisons- Atwater as 

Defendants in this action. He further identifies them as approximately 20 members of the 

shakedown crew on or about April 7, 2010.

Plaintiff alleges that during the April 2010 lockdown at Atwater, a mass shakedown was 

conducted in Unit 5A on or about April 7, 2010. Pursuant to the instructions of the shakedown 

crew, Plaintiff packed all of his personal property and government issued property into 10 full 

bags, with his name and cell number visible on each bag. The 10 bags included: 1 bag of 

government issued property, 3 bags of personal/commissary items and 6 bags of legal property. 

Plaintiff observed the shakedown crew remove 10 bags of property from his cell to be x-rayed. 

From there, his property was moved again to be manually searched.

After Plaintiff’s cell was searched and checked off on the shakedown log, Plaintiff was 

brought back to his cell. The crew returned 1 bag of government issued items, 1 bag of personal 

items and 3 bags of legal property. The returned bags were noted on the log sheet. Plaintiff 

asked about the remaining 5 bags (2 bags of personal property and 3 bags of legal property) and 

was told that they would be returned when the crew had finished their assigned tasks. Plaintiff’s 

5 bags were not returned and he never received a confiscation form to document confiscation of 

the property.

Case 1:12-cv-00357-AWI-DLB Document 19 Filed 04/22/13 Page 3 of 8
4

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

Plaintiff alleges that none of his bags contained contraband. He also explains that from 

2002 to 2009, he worked in the laundry department, where he witnessed shakedown crews push 

carts of inmates’ personal property and contraband to the trash compactor. 

Plaintiff inquired about his 5 bags of property, and Counselor Coggin was able to locate 

and return 2 bags of personal property. Plaintiff believes that his 3 bags of legal property were 

either intentionally or negligently lost or destroyed by the shakedown crew. He explains that 

there were approximately 20,000 pages or more of legal documents related to his cases 

challenging his conviction.2 His section 2255 petition had been pending in the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of California since 2004, and he was working on a writ of

mandamus to compel the court to issue an order when Atwater was placed on lockdown in April 

2010. 

Due to the intentional and/or negligent actions of the shakedown crew, Plaintiff was not 

able to perfect his writ. He asked the Clerk of Court about his case file and was informed that 

pro se status does not include free copies of legal documents. Plaintiff also contacted Attorney 

Diversified Services and was told that his case file was too large for a cost estimate.

In November 2010, Plaintiff received a response from his administrative remedy and was 

told to file a tort claim because no information regarding the 3 bags could be located. Plaintiff’s 

tort claim was denied on July 27, 2011, based on a finding that there was no negligence by the 

shakedown crew. Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration was denied on December 21, 2011, 

based on the finding that Plaintiff’s 10 bags of property were consolidated into 7 bags after 

excess government issued property was removed. Plaintiff contends that the 1 bag of 

government issued property did not contain excess property, and even if it had, that still leaves a 

partial bag and 9 other bags to return.

 

2

Plaintiff states that in 1997, he was wrongly accused and convicted by a jury of conspiracy to manufacture 

marijuana. He was sentenced to 50 years.

Case 1:12-cv-00357-AWI-DLB Document 19 Filed 04/22/13 Page 4 of 8
5

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

Plaintiff contends that the shakedown crew neglected to take precautions to safeguard his 

property and violated every Federal Bureau of Prisons policy regarding confiscation of personal 

property when they lost or destroyed his property without documentation.

On August 29, 2011, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s section 2255 petition. 

Without his legal file, Plaintiff contends that he was not able to raise every constitutional issue 

with merit in his application for a certificate of appealability. As of the date of this complaint, he 

is still without his property.

Plaintiff believes that the arbitrary actions of the crew might be in retaliation for the death 

of a prison guard in 2008 by Pacific Islanders, an ethnic group classified the same as Plaintiff, 

who is Asian. He also believes that it might be in retaliation for having to haul Plaintiff’s legal 

file every time there is a mass shakedown during a lockdown at Atwater.

Plaintiff alleges violations of his First and Sixth Amendment rights based on the loss of 

his legal material.

Plaintiff requests declaratory relief and monetary damages.

C. DISCUSSION

1. First Amendment- Access to Courts

Plaintiff has a constitutional right of access to the courts and prison officials may not 

actively interfere with his right to litigate. Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 

2011). However, to state a viable claim for relief, Plaintiff must allege he suffered an actual 

injury, which is actual prejudice with respect to contemplated or existing litigation. Nevada 

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

343, 348, 116 S.Ct. 2174 (1996)) (quotation marks omitted).

As the Court found in the first screening order, Plaintiff’s allegations state a claim for 

active interference with his ability to challenge his criminal conviction and sentence. Plaintiff 

alleges that Defendants’ actions prevented him from presenting all issues with merit in his 

Case 1:12-cv-00357-AWI-DLB Document 19 Filed 04/22/13 Page 5 of 8
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

application for a certificate of appealability, and that he continues to be without his necessary 

legal files to pursue his ongoing litigation. Plaintiff has therefore alleged both active interference 

and an actual injury. Silva, 658 F.3d at 1103.

Plaintiff has not, however, identified any named Defendants.

2. Sixth Amendment

The Sixth Amendment guarantees Plaintiff the right to represent himself in criminal 

proceedings, Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 834-36 (1975), and that right includes access to 

law books, witnesses, and other tools necessary to prepare a defense, Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 

1040, 1047 (1989) (quotation marks and citation omitted); Milton v. Morris, 767 F.2d 1443, 

1446-47 (9th Cir. 1985).

The nature of Plaintiff’s claim in his original complaint was unclear and he was granted 

leave to amend. In his FAC, Plaintiff cites his Sixth Amendment right “to his legal material 

necessary to prepare his ongoing litigation.” The Sixth Amendment, however, is based on a 

criminal defendant’s right to prepare a defense and only applies in criminal proceedings. Here, 

Plaintiff asserts his Sixth Amendment rights in connection with a 2255 petition. A 2255 petition 

is a civil matter and the Sixth Amendment does not apply. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot state a claim under the Sixth Amendment and the claim 

should be dismissed.

3. Identification of Doe Defendants

Ordinarily, where the Court finds at least one cognizable claim, the Court will give 

Plaintiff the option of proceeding on the cognizable claim and dismissing the remaining claims, 

or filing an amended complaint to cure the identified deficiencies.

Case 1:12-cv-00357-AWI-DLB Document 19 Filed 04/22/13 Page 6 of 8
7

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

Without naming any Defendants, however, Plaintiff, who is not proceeding in forma 

pauperis, will not be able to serve the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.3 

As explained above, Plaintiff has also submitted a request for a subpoena pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. This will be discussed by separate order.

If and when Plaintiff is able to identify Defendants, he will be required to submit an 

amended complaint setting forth their names. He need not file an amended complaint at this 

time.

D. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s FAC states a cognizable claim under the First 

Amendment. It does not state a claim under the Sixth Amendment and this deficiency cannot 

cured. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 

1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Sixth Amendment Claim 

be DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND for failure to state a claim.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

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

twenty (20) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 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).

///

///

 

3 When a Plaintiff pays the filing fee and is not proceeding in forma pauperis, he is responsible for serving 

Defendants in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. This requires Plaintiff to complete service of 

process and file proof thereof with the Court within 120 days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

Case 1:12-cv-00357-AWI-DLB Document 19 Filed 04/22/13 Page 7 of 8
8

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 20, 2013 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

3b142a

Case 1:12-cv-00357-AWI-DLB Document 19 Filed 04/22/13 Page 8 of 8