Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06949/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06949-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BILLY JOE FULTON, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

)

MCI WORLDCOM, INC., et al., )

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

CV F 03 6949 REC DLB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RE

DISMISSAL OF ACTION

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff BILLY JOE FULTON (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis. Plaintiff filed his initial complaint on January 5, 2004, and alleged claims of

antitrust and monopoly against Defendants MCI Worldcom, Inc., the California Department of

Corrections (“CDC”), and Does 1-25. He alleged that the CDC has a contract with MCI to

provide telephone services to inmates; that MCI “has enacted a collect telephone service system

in which they have formed a monopoly, in that inmates whose called parties do not have MCI

billable service [c]annot utilize the telephone system provided to them by the Department

because MCI . . . has placed a ‘Block’ on such calls.” Plaintiff alleged that he could not contact

his attorney or his family.

Case 1:03-cv-06949-OWW -DLB Document 14 Filed 05/22/06 Page 1 of 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

2

On January 16, 2004, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court dismiss the

action without leave to amend based on Defendants’ immunity under the Sherman Act. On

January 28, 2004, Plaintiff filed objections. He did not object to the dismissal of his monopoly

and antitrust claims, but objected to the recommendation of dismissal without leave to amend. 

He contended that he may be able to state a First Amendment violation and that he would not

name the CDC as a defendant if leave to amend was granted. 

On March 9, 2004, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend based on the possibility

that he may be able to state a claim for relief for violation of his rights under the First

Amendment. Plaintiff was advised to proceed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He was also advised that

the CDC is immune pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment. 

On March 24, 2004, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint alleging violation of his

First Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 12, 2004, the Court directed the Clerk

to redesignate the case to reflect that it is a prisoner civil rights action involving conditions of

confinement.

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); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the Court determines that the complaint fails to

state a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint

can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9 Cir. 2000) (en banc). th

DISCUSSION

In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff names Jeanne Woodford, the acting director of

the CDC, MCI Worldcom, and Does 1-10 as Defendants. He alleges that the Director of the

CDC has contracted with a vendor that violates his First Amendment right to use the telephone. 

He alleges that MCI has a policy of refusing collect telephone service to individuals who do not

have MCI service, rendering him unable to speak to his family or attorney. He seeks (1) an order

Case 1:03-cv-06949-OWW -DLB Document 14 Filed 05/22/06 Page 2 of 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

3

from the Court ordering the State to terminate its contract with MCI, unless MCI makes calls

available to all inmates; (2) monetary damages in the amount of $10,000; and (3) punitive

damages according to proof.

To the extent plaintiff alleges the director’s choice of long distance carrier deprives him

of telephone access to his family and attorney, these allegations also fail to state a cognizable

claim for relief. The Ninth Circuit has held that prisoners and pre-trial detainees have a First

Amendment right to telephone access. Strandberg v. City of Helena, 791 F.2d 744, 747 (9th Cir.

1986). This right, however, is “subject to rational limitations in the face of legitimate security

interests of the penal institution.” Id.“If the limitations on access are reasonable, there is no first

amendment violation.” Id. 

In Valdez v. Rosenbaum, 302 F.3d 1039 (9 Cir 2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1047, 123 th

S.Ct 2110, 155 L.Ed.2d 1087 (2003), the Court decided that the First Amendment right at issue

was really “the right to communicate with persons outside prison walls” and that the use of a

telephone is merely one means of exercising this right. Id. at 1048. 

The facts alleged in plaintiff’s amended complaint do not demonstrate a violation of

plaintiff’s First Amendment right to communicate with persons outside the prison. Plaintiff was

not denied the right to communicate, at most, he was denied his choice of communication. The

First Amendment does not require that prisoners have their choice of telephone services or that

they be given a specified rate for their telephone calls. See Johnson v. California, 207 F.3d 650

(9 Cir. 1999). th

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s amended complaint be dismissed for

failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted. In light of plaintiff’s inability to

cure the defects which were present in his original complaint, further leave to amend should not

be granted and this action should be dismissed in its entirety.

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

thirty (30) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, the parties may file

written objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate

Case 1:03-cv-06949-OWW -DLB Document 14 Filed 05/22/06 Page 3 of 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

4

Judge's Findings and Recommendations." 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: May 19, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06949-OWW -DLB Document 14 Filed 05/22/06 Page 4 of 4