Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01587/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01587-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mario Bennett
Plaintiff
Warden
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 

MARIO BENNETT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

WARDEN, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:24-cv-1587 TLN SCR P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 

§1983. Before the court are plaintiff’s complaint for screening and plaintiff’s motion to proceed 

in forma pauperis. For the reasons set forth below, this court grants plaintiff’s motion to proceed 

in forma pauperis, finds plaintiff states no claims for relief cognizable under §1983, and dismisses 

the complaint with leave to amend. 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. 

§1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 

 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. 

§§1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in 

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct 

the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and 

Case 2:24-cv-01587-TLN-SCR Document 15 Filed 12/03/24 Page 1 of 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 

2 

forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments 

of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. 

These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time 

the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. 

§1915(b)(2). 

SCREENING 

I. Legal Standards 

 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 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. See 28 

U.S.C. §1915A(b)(1) & (2). 

 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. Rule 8(a)(2) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘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 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 

544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 

 However, in order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must 

contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain 

factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 

550 U.S. at 555. In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the 

allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 

Case 2:24-cv-01587-TLN-SCR Document 15 Filed 12/03/24 Page 2 of 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 

3 

738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all 

doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

 Section 1983, enacted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, requires that there be an 

actual connection or link between the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to 

have been suffered by plaintiff. See Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978); 

Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 370-71 (1976). Plaintiff may demonstrate that connection by 

alleging facts showing: (1) a defendant’s “personal involvement in the constitutional 

deprivation,” or (2) that a defendant set “in motion a series of acts by others” or “knowingly 

refus[ed] to terminate a series of acts by others, which [the defendant] knew or reasonably should 

have known would cause others to inflict a constitutional injury.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 

1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

II. Discussion 

Plaintiff is incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison (“MCSP”). He identifies several 

defendants, none by name: (1) Warden of MCSP, (2) Facility C Search and Escort Officer, Mail 

Room, (3) Captain Third Watch Supervisor, (4) Lieutenant Third Watch Supervisor, and (5) 

Sergeant Third Watch Supervisor. While plaintiff has filled out information for three claims, 

each appears to contain identical allegations. Plaintiff alleges that he did not receive regular 

nonlegal mail daily as required by prison rules. He also states that mail was tampered with. 

Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief and compensation for emotional distress. 

The Supreme Court has recognized that prisoners have protected First Amendment 

interests in both sending and receiving mail. Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989); Turner 

v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987). With respect to incoming prisoner mail, prison officials have a 

responsibility to forward mail to inmates promptly. See Bryan v. Werner, 516 F.2d 233, 238 (3d 

Cir. 1975). Allegations that mail delivery was delayed for an inordinate amount of time and 

allegations of a pattern of interference with mail are sufficient to state a claim for violation of the 

First Amendment. See Calihan v. Adams, 2011 WL 284467, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2011) 

(ongoing delays of between twenty-one and thirty-five days in receiving incoming mail 

sufficiently long to substantially burden plaintiff’s First Amendment rights and chill his exercise 

Case 2:24-cv-01587-TLN-SCR Document 15 Filed 12/03/24 Page 3 of 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 

4 

of free speech). A temporary delay or isolated incident of delay does not violate a prisoner’s First 

Amendment rights. See Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957, 961 (9th Cir. 1999) (policy of diverting 

publications through property room reasonably related to prison’s interest in inspecting mail for 

contraband). However, delay or disruption based on the content of the inmate’s mail may support 

a claim. See Sizemore v. Williford, 829 F.2d 608, 610 (7th Cir.1987). 

Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to state a claim for a number of reasons. First, 

plaintiff fails to explain how long he was deprived of his mail and how often that deprivation 

occurred. Second, plaintiff fails to explain how his mail was tampered with. Third, plaintiff fails 

to identify the defendant or defendants responsible for the interference with his mail. In order to 

state a claim under section 1983, plaintiff must demonstrate a connection between actions of a 

defendant and a deprivation of his rights. 

CONCLUSION 

As explained above, plaintiff fails to state any claims for relief cognizable under §1983. 

This court will dismiss the complaint and give plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. 

In an amended complaint, plaintiff must address the problems with his complaint that are 

explained above. Plaintiff is advised that in an amended complaint he must clearly identify each 

defendant and the action that defendant took that violated his constitutional rights. The court is 

not required to review exhibits to determine what plaintiff’s charging allegations are as to each 

named defendant. If plaintiff wishes to add a claim, he must include it in the body of the 

complaint. The charging allegations must be set forth in the amended complaint so defendants 

have fair notice of the claims plaintiff is presenting. That said, plaintiff need not provide every 

detailed fact in support of his claims. Rather, plaintiff should provide a short, plain statement of 

each claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 

Any amended complaint must show the federal court has jurisdiction, the action is brought 

in the right place, and plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true. It must 

contain a request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons who 

personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional right. 

Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (a person deprives another of a 

Case 2:24-cv-01587-TLN-SCR Document 15 Filed 12/03/24 Page 4 of 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 

5 

constitutional right if that person was personally involved in the deprivation, set in motion acts by 

others that resulted in the deprivation, or refused to terminate acts by others that resulted in the 

deprivation). “Vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations 

are not sufficient.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). 

In an amended complaint, the allegations must be set forth in numbered paragraphs. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 18(a). If plaintiff has more than one claim based upon separate transactions or 

occurrences, the claims must be set forth in separate paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contemplate brevity. Plaintiff’s claims must be set 

forth in short and plain terms, simply, concisely, and directly. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 

534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) (“Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system, which 

was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. However, “a 

complaint must contain sufficient factual matter ... to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on 

its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A claim is 

plausible when the plaintiff includes facts “that allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference 

that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. 

An amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 

E.D. Cal. R. 220. Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading is superseded. 

By signing an amended complaint, plaintiff certifies he has made reasonable inquiry and has 

evidentiary support for his allegations, and for violation of this rule the court may impose 

sanctions sufficient to deter repetition by plaintiff or others. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. 

For the foregoing reasons, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as 

follows: 

 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 2, 11) is granted. 

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 

is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §1915(b)(1). 

All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the Director of the 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. 

Case 2:24-cv-01587-TLN-SCR Document 15 Filed 12/03/24 Page 5 of 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 

6 

3. Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with leave to amend. 

4. Plaintiff is granted sixty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 

complaint that complies with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the 

Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case 

and must be labeled “First Amended Complaint.” Failure to file an amended complaint in 

accordance with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the prisoner complaint 

form used in this district. 

DATED: December 3, 2024 

Case 2:24-cv-01587-TLN-SCR Document 15 Filed 12/03/24 Page 6 of 6