Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-00603/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-00603-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM E. BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. AMIS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-00603-HSG (PR) 

ORDER DENYING RENEWED 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 

COMPLAINT; DENYING MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 52, 53

Plaintiff, an inmate at California State Prison, Los Angeles County, filed a pro se

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s original complaint was dismissed with leave to 

amend on the grounds that the claims were difficult to discern, and there were a wide variety of 

claims that were improperly joined, in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a). On 

October 3, 2016, plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging violation of his religious rights at 

Pelican Bay State Prison, where he was previously incarcerated. The Court found that, when 

liberally construed, plaintiff’s allegations appear to state cognizable claims under § 1983 for 

violation of the First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and the Religious Land Use and 

Institutionalized Persons Act. (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1. Defendants Espinoza, Amis, 

and Losacco were ordered served. On September 19, 2017, they filed a motion to dismiss and for 

summary judgment.

On October 19, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint to name 

additional defendants. On October 25, 2017, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion without prejudice 

because plaintiff failed to include a proposed second amended complaint (“SAC”). The Court 

gave plaintiff the option to either submit a renewed motion for leave to amend with a proposed 

SAC or to file an opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss and for summary judgment. On 

November 29, 2017, plaintiff filed: (1) his opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss and for 

summary judgment, and (2) his renewed motion to amend the complaint. Dkt. No. 52. On 

Case 4:16-cv-00603-HSG Document 55 Filed 01/30/18 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

December 6, 2017, plaintiff also filed: (1) a motion to appoint counsel and an expert witness, and

(2) a proposed SAC. Dkt. No. 53.

In his proposed SAC, plaintiff includes new allegations relating to the failure of prison 

staff to process his inmate appeals. Although states may establish grievance procedures for 

inmates to follow, they are not constitutionally required to do so. See Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 

639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). Consequently, inmates do not have a due process right to a grievance 

procedure and a prison official’s failure to follow the grievance procedure does not give rise to a 

due process claim. See Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993) (prison official’s 

failure to process grievances does not state due process claim). Plaintiff’s remaining allegations 

reintroduce various claims for deprivation of property, retaliation and excessive force, among

other claims not related to the claims that have been served. Plaintiff was already cautioned that 

such claims are not properly joined with the religious practices claims. See Dkt. No. 26. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s renewed motion for leave to amend is DENIED.

Regarding his motion for appointment of counsel and an expert witness, plaintiff does not 

identify what sort of expert he wishes the Court to appoint, and the Court already denied his 

request for counsel for lack of exceptional circumstances. See Dkt. No. 20. The Court will 

appoint counsel (and/or an expert) on its own motion if circumstances change and it determines 

that such appointment is warranted.

As defendants have now filed their reply supporting their motion to dismiss and for 

summary judgment, the motion is hereby deemed submitted. A decision on the motion will be 

issued in a separate order.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 52 and 53.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

1/30/2018

Case 4:16-cv-00603-HSG Document 55 Filed 01/30/18 Page 2 of 2