Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01076/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01076-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dwight M. De Bose
Plaintiff
A. Schmidt
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DWIGHT M. DE BOSE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

A. SCHMIDT, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:15-cv-1076-EFB (TEMP) P 

ORDER AND 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

He has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 1

 Although he 

appears to meet the financial requirements, his complaint fails to state a cognizable claim for 

relief. 

SCREENING REQUIREMENT 

 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). 

 1

 This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). 

Case 2:15-cv-01076-JAM-EFB Document 8 Filed 06/09/16 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 

 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 

defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 

While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 

its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 

assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 

action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 

a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678. 

 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 

claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 

 Plaintiff’s complaint identifies Folsom State Prison Correctional Sergeant Schmidt as the 

sole defendant in this action. Plaintiff alleges that he was in administrative segregation and his 

personal property was in the basement of Building 1 when the basement flooded with water. 

According to plaintiff, for more than a year, he sought to work with defendant Schmidt to process 

an inmate appeal about his damaged and lost property. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Schmidt 

assured him he would process plaintiff’s inmate appeal but never actually did. Ultimately, 

defendant Schmidt moved to a different housing unit, and plaintiff no longer had access to him. 

Case 2:15-cv-01076-JAM-EFB Document 8 Filed 06/09/16 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 

Plaintiff contends that defendant Schmidt’s intention all along was to deny plaintiff his due 

process right to file his inmate appeal concerning his damaged and lost property. In terms of 

relief, plaintiff requests monetary damages. Compl. at 5 & Attachs. 

DISCUSSION 

Prison officials are not required to process inmate appeals in a specific way or to respond 

to them in a favorable manner. Rather, it is well established that “inmates lack a separate 

constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 

850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988)). See also, 

e.g., Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993) (an administrative “grievance 

procedure is a procedural right only, it does not confer any substantive right upon the inmates. 

Hence, it does not give rise to a protected liberty interest requiring the procedural protections 

envisioned by the fourteenth amendment . . . . Thus, defendants’ failure to process any of 

Buckley’s grievances, without more, is not actionable under section 1983.” (internal quotations 

omitted)); Walker v. Vazquez, No. CIV F-09-0931 YNP PC, 2009 WL 5088788 at *7 (E.D. Cal. 

Dec. 17, 2009) (plaintiff’s allegations that prison officials failed to timely process his inmate 

appeals failed to a state cognizable under the Fourteenth Amendment); Towner v. Knowles, No. 

CIV S-08-2833 LKK EFB P, 2009 WL 4281999 at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2009) (plaintiff’s 

allegations that prison officials screened out his inmate appeals without any basis failed to 

indicate a deprivation of federal rights); Williams v. Cate, No. F-09-0468 OWW YNP PC, 2009 

WL 3789597 at *6 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2009) (“Plaintiff has no protected liberty interest in the 

vindication of his administrative claims.”). Thus, even if defendant Schmidt delayed processing 

plaintiff’s inmate appeal concerning his personal property, the defendant has not deprived 

plaintiff of a federal constitutional right. 

It is clear from plaintiff’s allegations that the only reason he is suing Sergeant Schmidt is 

the alleged failure to process plaintiff’s inmate appeal, an event that is simply not actionable. 

Where, as here, it is clear that the complaint suffers from pleading deficiencies that cannot be 

cured by amendment, dismissal without leave to amend is appropriate. See Chaset v. 

Fleer/Skybox Int’l, 300 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002) (there is no need to prolong the litigation 

Case 2:15-cv-01076-JAM-EFB Document 8 Filed 06/09/16 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 

by permitting further amendment where the “basic flaw” in the underlying facts as alleged cannot 

be cured by amendment); Lipton v. Pathogenesis Corp., 284 F.3d 1027, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) 

(“Because any amendment would be futile, there was no need to prolong the litigation by 

permitting further amendment.”). 

CONCLUSION 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to 

randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. 

Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) be denied; 

2. Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief; and 

3. The Clerk be directed to close the case. 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

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

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff 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.” Plaintiff is advised that 

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 

Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 

1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: June 9, 2016.

Case 2:15-cv-01076-JAM-EFB Document 8 Filed 06/09/16 Page 4 of 4