Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00329/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00329-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
S. Aceves
Defendant
Tory Watts
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

TORY WATTS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

S. ACEVES, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:14cv00329 DLB PC

ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED 

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Tory Watts (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action 

on March 10, 2014. Pursuant to Court order, he filed a First Amended Complaint on August 28, 

2014. He names Pleasant Valley State Prison (“PVSP”) Correctional Officer S. Aceves as the 

sole Defendant.1

A. SCREENING 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 

 

1 On March 24, 2014, Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge.

Case 1:14-cv-00329-DLB Document 8 Filed 02/17/15 Page 1 of 6
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

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.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or 

other federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 

1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); 

Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff’s allegations must link the 

actions or omissions of each named defendant to a violation of his rights; there is no respondeat 

superior liability under section 1983. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Simmons v. Navajo County, 

Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 

(9th Cir. 2009); Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. Plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to 

state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 

Case 1:14-cv-00329-DLB Document 8 Filed 02/17/15 Page 2 of 6
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

572F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this 

plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 

B. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at PVSP, where the events at issue occurred. 

Plaintiff alleges that on August 19, 2013, Defendant Aceves took a black 4x6 address 

book which was labeled, “Confidential Law Documents,” during a body inspection. ECF No. 7, 

at 3. Plaintiff told her that the book contained indispensable legal material, not numbers. She 

placed the address book inside her pocket and told Plaintiff that he had earned a cell cleaning. 

Defendant then searched his cell and took additional items, such as a CD player and food.

Plaintiff approached her and told her that he only cared about his address book because 

he needed the information for his case. Defendant Aceves said, “I see you’re not argumentative 

when I have something you want,” and told Plaintiff to get out of her face. ECF No. 7, at 4. 

Towards the end of her shift, Plaintiff approached her again about the return of his 

address book, but Defendant ignored him. She placed all of the items from Plaintiff’s cell into 

her locker and walked out with his address book. 

The next morning, she arrived at work and returned Plaintiff’s identification card. After 

breakfast, Defendant called Plaintiff to the podium and returned all of his property except for the 

address book. Plaintiff asked her where his documents were and she said, “that’s all I’m giving 

to you.” ECF No. 7, at 5. Plaintiff told her to give him his legal materials or call the sergeant. 

Defendant told Plaintiff that if he asked her again, she’d make sure that he never saw it.

Plaintiff submitted an inmate request form and tried to talk to Defendant’s superior. 

Plaintiff failed to get his attention, however. Defendant then approached Plaintiff and told him 

that he could “kiss [his] little papers goodbye.” ECF No. 7, at 5. She told Plaintiff to never go 

over her head when she gives him an order. When Defendant left that afternoon, she had 

Case 1:14-cv-00329-DLB Document 8 Filed 02/17/15 Page 3 of 6
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’s documents in her hand as she walked out the door. Plaintiff never saw them again and 

argues that Defendant is responsible for the theft and destruction of his legal documents.

Plaintiff alleges a violation of his right to access the courts. He requests monetary 

damages for violation of his civil rights and intentional theft of his legal/personal property.

C. DISCUSSION

1. Access to Courts

Inmates have a fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 

518 U.S. 343, 346, 116 S.Ct. 2174 (1996); Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir. 

2011); Phillips v. Hust, 588 F.3d 652, 655 (9th Cir. 2009). However, to state a viable claim for 

relief, Plaintiff must show that he suffered an actual injury, which requires “actual prejudice to 

contemplated or existing litigation.” Nevada Dep’t of Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th 

Cir. 2011) (citing Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 132 

S.Ct. 1823 (2012); Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415, 122 S.Ct. 2179 (2002); Lewis, 

518 U.S. at 351; Phillips, 588 F.3d at 655. 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated his right to access the courts when she took his 

address book. However, while he references “his case,” he does not provide any specific 

information to support an actual injury. Defendant’s alleged taking of his legal papers, without 

actual injury to a legal proceeding, is insufficient to state a claim under the First Amendment. 

Plaintiff therefore fails to state a claim under the First Amendment. Plaintiff will be 

permitted to amend this claim.

2. Due Process

Plaintiff requests monetary damages for the intentional theft of his property. However, as 

the Court explained in the prior screening order, there is no redress under section 1983 for the 

unauthorized deprivation of property. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (“[a]n

Case 1:14-cv-00329-DLB Document 8 Filed 02/17/15 Page 4 of 6
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

unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state employee does not constitute a 

violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available.”

This deficiency cannot be cured by amendment.

D. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state a claim for 

which relief may be granted. The Court will grant Plaintiff one final opportunity to amend. 

Plaintiff may only amend the First Amendment claim.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what 

each named Defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s federal rights and liability 

may not be imposed on supervisory personnel under the theory of mere respondeat superior, 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-07 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 

132 S.Ct. 2101 (2012). Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] 

to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations 

omitted). 

Finally, an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be “complete in itself 

without reference to the prior or superceded pleading,” Local Rule 220. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an 

amended complaint; and

Case 1:14-cv-00329-DLB Document 8 Filed 02/17/15 Page 5 of 6
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. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this 

action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00329-DLB Document 8 Filed 02/17/15 Page 6 of 6