Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05470/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05470-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Gilkey
Defendant
Baltazar Godoy-Aguirre
Plaintiff
Percy Pitzer
Defendant
James Restivo
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BALTAZAR GODOY-AGUIRRE,

Plaintiff, CV F 03 5470 AWI WMW P

vs. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

CHARLES GILKEY, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a former federal prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief

pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and has requested leave to

proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this

court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff, formerly incarcerated at the Correctional Institution at California City,

brings this civil rights action against defendants employed by the U.. Bureau of Prisons at

California City. Plaintiff names the following individual defendants: Warden Charles Gilkey;

former Warden Percy Pitzer; former intelligence officer James Restivo. Plaintiff’s general

claim is that his outgoing mail was opened by prison officials in the Special Intelligence Services

Case 1:03-cv-05470-AWI-WMW Document 20 Filed 08/30/05 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

2

department. 

Plaintiff more specifically alleges that he filed a grievance. In his grievance, he

advised the warden that he was not a member of any group that would cause prison authorities to

open his mail. Plaintiff had been advised that he as a member of a Security Threat Group which,

presumably, authorized the monitoring of his outgoing mail. Plaintiff contends that he was not

a part of any such group, and the conduct of defendants constitutes harassment.

Censorship of outgoing prisoner mail is justified if the following criteria are met:

(1) the regulation furthers “an important or substantial government interest unrelated to the

suppression of expression” and (2) “the limitation on First Amendment freedoms must be no

greater than is necessary or essential to the protection of the particular governmental interest

involved.” Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 413 (1974). 

Plaintiff does not appear to challenge the justification of the censorship. There

appears to be no legal challenge to any regulation authorizing the censorship. Plaintiff is

challenging his classification as a member of a security threat group. In order to state a cause of

action for deprivation of procedural due process, a plaintiff must first establish the existence of a

liberty interest for which the protection is sought. In Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995), the

Supreme Court abandoned earlier case law which had held that states created protectable liberty

interests by way of mandatory language in prison regulations. Id. at 481-84. Instead, the Court

adopted an approach in which the existence of a liberty interest is determined by focusing on the

nature of the deprivation. Id. In doing so, the Court held that liberty interests created by prison

regulations are limited to freedom from restraint which “imposes atypical and significant

hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Id. at 484. 

To the extent that plaintiff is alleging that censorship of his mail was authorized without

due process of law, plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section

1983. Plaintiff has not established the existence of a liberty interest entitling him to procedural

Case 1:03-cv-05470-AWI-WMW Document 20 Filed 08/30/05 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

3

due process. The censorship of outgoing mail and outgoing telephone calls with the

announcement that the mail and calls originated from a state prison simply does not “impose

atypical and significant hardship on the [plaintiff] in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison

life.” Id. at 484. Because plaintiff does not have a liberty interest in being free from the

censorship of his mail, plaintiff is not entitled to any procedural due process protections with

respect to such censoring. The complaint therefore fails to state a claim for relief and must be

dismissed. Plaintiff will, however, be granted leave to file an amended complaint.

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). Also, 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). 

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in

order to make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an

amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is

because, 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. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an

Case 1:03-cv-05470-AWI-WMW Document 20 Filed 08/30/05 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

4

amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, 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 "Amended Complaint"; plaintiff must file

an original and two copies of the amended complaint; failure to file an amended complaint in

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 29, 2005 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05470-AWI-WMW Document 20 Filed 08/30/05 Page 4 of 4