Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00883/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00883-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Vance Edward Johnson
Plaintiff
J. Morgan
Defendant
J. Vierra
Defendant

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

VANCE EDWARD JOHNSON,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

J. MORGAN AND J. VIERRA,

 Defendants.

1:15-CV-00883-LJO-EPG-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 

(ECF No. 13.)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 

TWENTY DAYS

Plaintiff Vance Edward Johnson (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint 

commencing this action on June 11, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) The Court screened the complaint on 

September 6, 2016, and dismissed the claims with leave to file a First Amended Complaint. 

(ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on October 11, 2016. (ECF No. 13.) 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant J. Morgan, Appeals Coordinator of Pleasant Valley State Prison 

(PVSP), and J. Vierra, Analysis at PVSP wrongfully obstruct, circumvent, and interfere with 

Johnson’s 602 Inmate Appeals process. (Id.)

This Court has screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and finds that it fails to 

state a claim as to any defendants. 

\\\

Case 1:15-cv-00883-LJO-EPG Document 14 Filed 11/02/16 Page 1 of 5
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

I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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).

A complaint is required to 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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are 

taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart 

Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that 

is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. While factual allegations are accepted as true, 

legal conclusions are not. Id.

To state a viable claim for relief, Plaintiff must set forth sufficient factual allegations to 

state a plausible claim for relief. Id. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 

(9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility 

standard. Id. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standards

Section 1983 provides a cause of action against any person who, under color of state 

law, “subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation 

of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “A 

Case 1:15-cv-00883-LJO-EPG Document 14 Filed 11/02/16 Page 2 of 5
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

person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of 

section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts, or omits to 

perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint 

is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). “In a § 1983 action, the 

plaintiff must also demonstrate that the defendant’s conduct was the actionable cause of the 

claimed injury. To meet this causation requirement, the plaintiff must establish both causationin-fact and proximate causation.” Harper v. City of L.A., 533 F.3d 1010, 1026 (9th Cir. 2008)

(internal citations omitted). Proximate cause requires “‘some direct relation between the injury 

asserted and the injurious conduct alleged.”’ Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York, 559 U.S. 

1, 130 (2010) (quoting Holmes v. Secs. Investor Prot. Corp., 503 U.S. 258, 268 (1992)).

Prisoners have a right under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to litigate claims 

challenging their sentences or the conditions of their confinement without direct interference 

from prison officials. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996); Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 

1090, 1103 (9th Cir. 2011); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 824–25 (1977). However, 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. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 

354. To claim a violation of this right, a plaintiff must show that he has suffered an actual 

injury as a result of the alleged interference. Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002); 

Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351. In other words, he must be able to show that the deprivation has 

directly impacted the relevant litigation in a manner adverse to him. Id. at 348 (defining “actual 

injury” as “actual prejudice with respect to contemplated or existing litigation, such as the 

inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a claim”). 

Defendants’ actions in responding to Plaintiff’s appeals, alone, cannot give rise to any 

claims for relief under section 1983 for violation of due process. “[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

Case 1:15-cv-00883-LJO-EPG Document 14 Filed 11/02/16 Page 3 of 5
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

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, 568 F. Supp. at 10; Spencer v. 

Moore, 638 F. Supp. 315, 316 (E.D. Mo. 1986). 

B. Analysis of Plaintiff’s Claims in Light of Legal Standards

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint describes his interactions with the two named 

Defendants for a time period beginning in November of 2013 and ending in June of 2015. 

(ECF No. 13, pp. 5-6.) Defendants wrongfully instructed Plaintiff to remove supporting 

documentation from his appeals. They threatened to place Plaintiff on appeal restriction for 

misusing and abusing the appeal process. They hindered the appeals process and/or fail to 

inform Plaintiff as to the status of certain pending appeals. 

The First Amended Complaint does not describe the underlying merits of any of the 602 

appeals, besides a reference to an appliance issue. 

Similarly to the original complaint, Plaintiff has not shown in his amended complaint

that any of the defendants’ actions, or failure to act, during the prison appeals process, caused 

him actual prejudice with respect to pending litigation or a claim that he was unable to bring. 

Plaintiff does not discuss the underlying merits of the appeals and does not appear to be suing 

for an underlying issue—he is complaining about the grievance process itself. The complaint

does not describe an injury impacting Plaintiff’s litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing 

deadline or to present a claim. 

The only mention of another case is a reference to a case in this District, Johnson v. 

Sweeney, 1:14-cv-01526-DAD-SAB. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Morgan conspired with 

California Attorney General and the Judge to permit the defendants in that case to file an 

additional summary judgment motion. However, Plaintiff was able to present his claim in that 

case and the case remains pending at this time. Thus, the Court must conclude that either 

Plaintiff did not suffer actual harm from the Defendant’s actions, or Plaintiff has yet to suffer 

any actual harm. In either case, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be 

Case 1:15-cv-00883-LJO-EPG Document 14 Filed 11/02/16 Page 4 of 5
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

granted and dismissal of his access to the courts claim is warranted. Because it appears at least

possible that Plaintiff may suffer actual harm at some point in the future, the dismissal should 

be without prejudice.

III. RECOMMENDATION

The Court finds that Plaintiff=s First Amended Complaint fails to state any cognizable 

claim upon which relief may be granted under ' 1983. Plaintiff’s original complaint was

previously dismissed with leave to amend for the same reason. (ECF No. 12.) Because it does 

not appear that Plaintiff can state a cognizable claim at this time, it is RECOMMENDED that 

this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within twenty 

(20) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file 

written objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be 

served and filed within ten (10) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that 

failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 

1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 2, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00883-LJO-EPG Document 14 Filed 11/02/16 Page 5 of 5