Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06398/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06398-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tony Blackman
Plaintiff
T. Variz
Defendant

Document Text:

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TONY BLACKMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. VARIZ, etc.; et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-6398 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

INTRODUCTION

Tony Blackman, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is now before the court for review of the pleadings

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

BACKGROUND

Blackman originally filed his complaint in the Eastern District of California. The action

was transferred to the Northern District because the complaint concerned acts and omissions at

Salinas Valley State Prison, in Monterey County, within the venue of the Northern District of

California. When the action was received in this district, on October 13, 2006, the court sent

Blackman a notice that his in forma pauperis application was incomplete in that it did not have

a certificate of funds or an inmate trust account statement for the last six months. Blackman

filed an in forma pauperis application on November 13, 2006 without the trust account statement

or the certificate of funds. He also filed an amended complaint on November 13, 2006. 

Case 3:06-cv-06398-SI Document 5 Filed 12/18/06 Page 1 of 5
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

Normally, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See London v.

Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981) ("a plaintiff waives all causes of action

alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in the amended complaint.") It is

necessary to discuss both the original complaint and the amended complaint to understand

Blackman's problem.

The original complaint alleges that prison officials refused to process Blackman's

administrative appeals. The amended complaint alleges that the inmate appeals coordinator

refused to process Blackman'srecent inmate appeal concerning the in forma pauperis application

this court ordered him to file. The attachments to the amended complaint show that he filed an

inmate appeal on October 19, 2006 and it was promptly dismissed as duplicative. The rejection

form also had a handwritten note directing Blackman to "comply with original screen out. I sent

you O.P. # 2 showing you how to proceed with your 'in forma pauperis' -- you continue to ignore

my instructions. Appeal is rejected." The amended complaint does not allege that Blackman

complied with the prison's established procedure (i.e., O.P. # 2) to obtain the materials needed

for an in forma pauperis application.

 DISCUSSION

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss

any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,

or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). A claim that is incomprehensible may be dismissed

as frivolous as it is without an arguable basis in law. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 641

(9th Cir. 1989).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that

a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the

Case 3:06-cv-06398-SI Document 5 Filed 12/18/06 Page 2 of 5
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins,

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

The complaint and the amended complaint do not state a claim upon which relief may be

granted. First, there is no federal constitutional right to a prison administrative appeal or

grievance system for California inmates. See Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.

1988); Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1430 (7th Cir. 1996). The denial of an inmate appeal

is not so severe a change in condition as to implicate the Due Process Clause itself and the State

of California has not created a protected interest in an administrative appeal system in its prisons.

California Code of Regulations, title 15 sections 1073 and 3084.1 grant prisoners in the county

jails and state prisons a purely procedural right: the right to have a prison appeal. The

regulations simply require the establishment of a procedural structure for reviewing prisoner

complaints and set forth no substantive standards; instead, they provide for flexible appeal time

limits,see Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.6, and, at most, that "no reprisal shall be taken against

an inmate or parolee for filing an appeal," id. § 3084.1(d). A provision that merely provides

procedural requirements, even if mandatory, cannot form the basis of a constitutionally

cognizable liberty interest. See Smith v. Noonan, 992 F.2d 987, 989 (9th Cir. 1993); see also

Antonelli, 81 F.3d at 1430 (prison grievance procedure is procedural right that does not give rise

to protected liberty interest requiring procedural protections of Due Process Clause). Blackman

had no federal constitutional right to a properly functioning appeal system. An incorrect

decision on an administrative appeal or failure to process the appeal in a particular way therefore

did not amount to a violation of his right to due process.

Second, the failure to process Blackman's inmate grievance or his request for the trust

account statement and certificate of funds needed for his in forma pauperis request did not result

in a denial of access to the courts because he did not suffer any actual injury as a result of the

alleged misconduct of prison officials. A constitutional right of access to the courts does exist,

but to establish a claim for any violation of the right of access to the courts, the prisoner must

show that there was an inadequacy in the prison's legal access program that caused him an actual

injury. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350-51 (1996). To prove an actual injury, the

Case 3:06-cv-06398-SI Document 5 Filed 12/18/06 Page 3 of 5
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

prisoner must show that the inadequacy hindered him in presenting a non-frivolous claim

concerning his conviction or conditions of confinement. See id. at 355. Examples of

impermissible hindrances include: a prisoner whose complaint was dismissed for failure to

satisfy some technical requirement which, because of deficiencies in the prison's legal assistance

facilities, he could not have known; and a prisoner who had "suffered arguably actionable harm"

that he wished to bring to the attention of the court, but was so stymied by the inadequacies of

the prison's services that he was unable even to file a complaint. See id. at 351. Mere delay in

filing papers would not be enough, for example, if they were nevertheless timely filed or

accepted and considered by the court. See Hudson v. Robinson, 678 F.2d 462, 466 (3d Cir.

1982). Here, no actual injury had occurred at the time of the filing of the complaint or the

amended complaint. This court had not dismissed this action based on Blackman's failure to

submit the required inmate trust account materials or to exhaust administrative remedies. In fact,

the deadline for filing the inmate trust account materials (i.e., thirty days after the October 13,

2006 notice from this court) had not even passed when Blackman filed his amended complaint

in which he complained that prison officials had not provided him with the requested material.

Finally, the exhibits attached to the amended complaint indicate that Blackman's failure

to obtain the materials needed for the in forma pauperis application was due to his refusal to

follow standard operating policy rather than misbehavior by the prison officials. The

attachments indicate that Blackman insisted on using the inmate appeal system to obtain the

materials despite the prison officials' direction to him that he had to follow "O.P. # 2." If there

was a standard operating policy at the prison to obtain a trust account statement or certificate of

funds, the prisoner must follow it absent extraordinary circumstances. If the prison policy was

that a trust account statement or certificate of funds could not be obtained through the inmate

appeals system, it was inexplicable why the plaintiff continued to pursue that route. The claim

for denial of access to the courts is dismissed without leave to amend.

Case 3:06-cv-06398-SI Document 5 Filed 12/18/06 Page 4 of 5
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, neither the complaint nor the amended complaint state a claim

upon which relief may be granted. Leave to amend will not be granted because it would be

futile. This action is dismissed. The in forma pauperis application is DENIED. (Docket # 2 and

# 4.) The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 18, 2006 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-06398-SI Document 5 Filed 12/18/06 Page 5 of 5