Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00466/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00466-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cooper
Defendant
Curtis
Defendant
Moreno
Defendant
Thomas
Defendant
Robert Trevino
Plaintiff
Whitten
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT TREVINO,

Plaintiff,

v.

WHITTEN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-00466-OWW-SMS-P

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE

AMENDED COMPLAINT OR NOTIFY

COURT OF WILLINGNESS TO PROCEED

ONLY ON COGNIZABLE ACCESS TO THE

COURTS CLAIM

(Doc. 1)

I. Screening Order

A. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff Robert Trevino (“plaintiff”) is a 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 April

11, 2005. 

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).

“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). 

///

Case 1:05-cv-00466-OWW -SMS Document 11 Filed 10/05/05 Page 1 of 7
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

 Also identified in the complaint as defendant John Doe.

2

Plaintiff also seeks an injunction mandating the reinstatement of his dismissed appeal to the Ninth Circuit. 

Even if plaintiff prevails in this suit, the court cannot order as relief the reinstatement of plaintiff’s appeal. For that

reason, this action shall be treated as one for money damages only.

3

 The court takes judicial notice that on January 15, 2003, in docket number 01-15557 Trevino v. Gomez,

the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendants and against plaintiff in case

number CV-S-97-01771-LKK (DAD). Plaintiff sought an extension of time to file a petition for rehearing and on

February 21, 2003, plaintiff was granted a ten day extension of time by the Ninth Circuit and informed that no further

extensions of time would be granted. On March 13, 2003, plaintiff filed his petition and a motion seeking leave to

act in excess of time. Plaintiff’s petition was not considered by the Court, in accordance with the Court’s order of

February 21, 2003. 

2

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467

U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citingConley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt

Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). 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. 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).

B. Summary of Plaintiff’s Complaint

The events at issue in the instant action allegedly occurred at the California Substance Abuse

Treatment Facility and State Prison-Corcoran, where plaintiff is presently incarcerated. Plaintiff

names prison employees Whitten, Thomas, Cooper, Moreno, and Curtis1 as defendants. Plaintiff is

seeking money damages.2 

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that he was granted a ten day extension of time by the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals with the warning that no further extensions of time would be granted.3

Plaintiff alleges that he prepared his petition for rehearing in time but needed fifty copies of the

petition. A lock-down occurred two or three days before plaintiff’s deadline. Plaintiff showed

defendant Sergeant Curtis the Ninth Circuit’s order and told Curtis that he needed photocopies and

had only two or three days to mail his petition. Defendant Curtis stated that the institution was on

Case 1:05-cv-00466-OWW -SMS Document 11 Filed 10/05/05 Page 2 of 7
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

lock-down and he could not get plaintiff access to the law library. Plaintiff subsequently showed the

order to defendant Thomas, the law librarian, who told plaintiff that he was only taking inmates with

“Priority Legal User” status, which plaintiff did not have. 

The next day, plaintiff again approached defendant Thomas, who told plaintiff that he could

not make the copies that day, but to leave the petition and the copies would be ready in a day or so.

A day or two later, plaintiff mailed his petition with a request to act in excess of time and an

explanation why his petition was late. Plaintiff alleges he received a copy of the Ninth Circuit

docket in response, which he did not understand. Plaintiff sought the assistance of California Prison

Focus and was informed that his case was no longer pending at the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiff then filed

an inmate appeal (CDC form 602). 

Defendant Thomas responded at the informal level of review and the appeal was sent to the

first formal level of review. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Moreno, an appeals coordinator, later

disposed of the appeal without responding to it. Plaintiff then filed an appeal concerning the

disposition of the original appeal and requested a response from defendant Moreno. Plaintiff was

subsequently told by defendant Moreno to redraft the original appeal and submit it to the first formal

level of review. Plaintiff alleges that this appeal also was not responded to after it was submitted

to defendant Moreno. 

After several months passed and plaintiff attempted repeatedly but unsuccessfully to get a

response from defendant Moreno, plaintiff went to defendant Whitten, a correctional counselor, with

copies of the paperwork. Defendant Whitten told plaintiff that he would take care of it and while

plaintiff was present, had a telephone conversation with defendant Moreno. Plaintiff was informed

that a meeting with defendant Moreno would be set up for him. The meeting did not occur and

instead plaintiff was summoned to defendant Cooper’s office. Plaintiff explained everything that

happened and defendant Cooper, who was an appeals coordinator and defendant Whitten’s

supervisor, told him that defendant Moreno was not going to respond to the appeal because plaintiff

took too long to rewrite it. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Moreno never responded to plaintiff in

writing to inform him that the appeal was not going to be processed because plaintiff took too long

to rewrite it. Plaintiff continued to wait for the appeal to be processed and attempted to gain

Case 1:05-cv-00466-OWW -SMS Document 11 Filed 10/05/05 Page 3 of 7
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

defendant Whitten’s assistance. Defendant Cooper then intervened and told plaintiff it was a dead

issue. 

Based on these events, plaintiff alleges claims for relief for denial of access to the courts, and

violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

C. Plaintiff’s Section 1983 Claims

1. Untimely Petition for Rehearing

a. Access to the Courts Claim

Inmates have a fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 518

U.S. 343, 346 (1996). The right of access is merely the right to bring to court a grievance the inmate

wishes to present, and is limited to direct criminal appeals, habeas petitions, and civil rights actions.

Id. at 354. The State is not required to enable the inmate to discover grievances or to litigate

effectively once in court. Id. An inmate claiming interference with or denial of access to the courts

must show that he suffered an actual injury. Id. at 351. 

The court finds that plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to give rise to a claim for relief

against defendants Thomas and Curtis for violating plaintiff’s right of access to the courts. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 8(a); Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512-15 (2002); Austin v. Terhune, 367

F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004).

2. Inmate Appeals Process

a. Due Process/Access to Court Claim

The Due Process Clause protects prisoners from being deprived of liberty without due

process of law. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). In order to state a cause of action

for deprivation of due process, a plaintiff must first establish the existence of a liberty interest for

which the protection is sought. “States may under certain circumstances create liberty interests

which are protected by the Due Process Clause.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995).

Liberty interests created by state law are generally limited to freedom from restraint which “imposes

atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.”

Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484. 

///

Case 1:05-cv-00466-OWW -SMS Document 11 Filed 10/05/05 Page 4 of 7
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

“[A prison] grievance procedure is a procedural right only, it does not confer any substantive

right upon the inmates.” Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993) (citing Azeez v.

DeRobertis, 568 F. Supp. 8, 10 (N.D. Ill. 1982)); see also Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th

Cir. 2003) (no liberty interest in processing of appeals because no entitlement to a specific grievance

procedure); Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001) (existence of grievance procedure

confers no liberty interest on prisoner); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). “Hence,

it does not give rise to a protected liberty interest requiring the procedural protections envisioned by

the Fourteenth Amendment.” Azeez v. DeRobertis, 568 F. Supp. at 10; Spencer v. Moore, 638 F.

Supp. 315, 316 (E.D. Mo. 1986). Actions in reviewing prisoner’s administrative appeal cannot serve

as the basis for liability under a § 1983 action. Buckley, 997 F.2d at 495. 

Defendants’ actions stemming from plaintiff’s attempts to pursue his inmate appeals do not

give rise to a claim for relief for violation of the Due Process Clause, as plaintiff does not have a

protected interest at stake with respect to utilization of the appeals process. With respect to the

mandatory exhaustion requirement set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), interference with plaintiff’s

attempts to exhaust via the appeals process would give rise to a cognizable access to the courts claim

only if and when plaintiff suffered an actual injury by having his claim or action dismissed for failure

to exhaust. Until such an injury actually occurs, it is pure speculation on plaintiff’s part that his

inability to exhaust will result in the loss of his claim or action. See e.g., Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d

620, 631 (9th Cir. 2005) (exhaustion occurred when appeals coordinator exercised discretion to

screen out appeal as untimely and no further process remained available to the inmate); Mitchell v.

Horn, 318 F.3d 523, 529 (3d Cir. 2003) (recognizing that a remedy prison officials prevent a prisoner

from utilizing is not an available remedy); Miller v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736, 740 (8th Cir. 2001) (a

remedy prison officials prevent a prisoner from utilizing is not an available remedy). Accordingly,

plaintiff’s allegations concerning his attempts to utilized the inmate appeals process do not give rise

to any claims for relief under section 1983 for denial of due process and/or denial of access to the

courts.

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-00466-OWW -SMS Document 11 Filed 10/05/05 Page 5 of 7
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

b. Equal Protection Claim

Equal protection claims arise when a charge is made that similarly situated individuals are

treated differently without a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose. See San Antonio

School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1972). In order to state a § 1983 claim based on a

violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a plaintiff must show that

defendants acted with intentional discrimination against plaintiff or against a class of inmates which

included plaintiff. Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000) (equal protection

claims may be brought by a “class of one”); Reese v. Jefferson Sch. Dist. No. 14J, 208 F.3d 736, 740

(9th Cir. 2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998); Federal Deposit Ins.

Corp. v. Henderson, 940 F.2d 465, 471 (9th Cir. 1991); Lowe v. City of Monrovia, 775 F.2d 998,

1010 (9th Cir. 1985). “A plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an

individual was personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights.” Barren, 152 F.3d at 1194.

Although plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his right to equal protection when they

barred him from completing the inmate appeals process, plaintiff’s allegations do not give rise to a

claim for relief for violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

D. Conclusion

The court finds that plaintiff’s complaint contains a cognizable claim for relief against

defendants Thomas and Curtis for denial of access to the courts. However, the court finds that

plaintiff’s complaint does not contain any other claims upon which relief may be granted under

section 1983. The court will provide plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended complaint,

if plaintiff wishes to do so.

If plaintiff does not wish to file an amended complaint and wishes to proceed against

defendants Thomas and Curtis on his access to the courts claim only, plaintiff may so notify the court

in writing. The court will then issue Findings and Recommendations recommending that the

remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action, and will forward plaintiff two

summonses and two USM-285 forms to fill out and return to the court. Upon receipt of these

documents, the court will direct the United States Marshal to initiate service of process on

defendants Thomas and Curtis.

Case 1:05-cv-00466-OWW -SMS Document 11 Filed 10/05/05 Page 6 of 7
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

7

In the event that plaintiff does wish to amend his complaint, plaintiff is advised Local Rule

15-220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior

pleading. As a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux

v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original

pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions

complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy,

625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how each named

defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some

affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v.

Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy,

588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff must either:

a. File an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the court in

this order, or

b. Notify the court in writing that he does not wish to file an amended complaint

and wishes to proceed only against defendants Thomas and Curtis on his

access to the courts claim; and

3. If plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed for failure to

obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 4, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00466-OWW -SMS Document 11 Filed 10/05/05 Page 7 of 7