Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-05390/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-05390-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tony Blackman
Petitioner
Eloy Medina
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TONY BLACKMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

ELOY MEDINA, etc.; et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-5390 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. His complaint and amended complaint are now before the court

for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A. 

BACKGROUND

This action began when Blackman filed a civil rights complaint in the Eastern District of

California. The action was ordered transferred from the Eastern District to this District on

December 15, 2005. On December 29, 2005, 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 January 30, 2006 without the trust account statement or the certificate of funds. He also filed

an amended complaint on January 30, 2006. 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

Case 3:05-cv-05390-SI Document 5 Filed 03/13/06 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

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

the amended complaint.") Here, however, it is necessary to review both pleadings to understand

and evaluate Blackman's claims. 

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

administrative appeals. He allegedly appealed to correspond confidentially with "Black

correctional officer Mr. James. so plaintiff can request C/O Mr. James to be promoted to

correctional sergeant to (investigate) plaintiff illegal prison condition false imprisonment. and

that plaintiff be allowed to 'amend' plaintiff 1983 civil suit complaint filed August 22, 2005 and

to receive 'one copy' of plaintiff 1983 civil suit complaint filed August 22, 2005." Complaint,

p. 4 (errors in source). 

The amended complaint alleges that the inmate appeals coordinator refused to process

Blackman's inmate appeal concerning his in forma pauperis application. The attachments to the

amended complaint show that Blackman received from this court a notice to file a completed in

forma pauperis application and on January 3, 2006, asked the trust account office to provide an

inmate trust account statement. Apparently dissatisfied with the trust account office's failure to

immediately provide the requested materials, Blackman filed an inmate grievance about the

matter the next day. The following day (i.e., January 5, 2006), Blackman's inmate appeal was

rejected as incomplete, with a handwritten note from the appeals coordinator: "in the action

requested, you state you want to know why the trust account office refused to sign the in forma

pauperis. Attach copy of denial from trust office." Amended Complaint, Exh. A. The amended

complaint does not allege that Blackman took any further action to pursue his inmate appeal.

Blackman's amended complaint also stated he wanted to file an inmate appeal "so plaintiff can

request officer Mrs. S. Collins promotion to sergeant to (investigate) plaintiff's illegal prison

condition false imprisonment due to (liberty - deprivation)." Amended Complaint, p. 4. 

 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

Case 3:05-cv-05390-SI Document 5 Filed 03/13/06 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

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

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

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

Case 3:05-cv-05390-SI Document 5 Filed 03/13/06 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

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

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

Second, the failure to process Blackman's inmate grievance or 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 prisoner must show that the inadequacy hindered him in presenting a nonfrivolous 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 has occurred. This court has 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 December 29, 2005 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. Moreover, the exhibits attached to the amended

complaint indicate great impatience by Blackman rather than foot-dragging by prison officials:

within just one day of not having his request to the trust account office filled, he filed a

grievance and within just one more a day, the grievance was rejected as incomplete. There also

is no indication that he attempted to provide the document requested to make his grievance

complete. He alleges that the defendant refused to respond to his appeal, see Amended

Complaint, p. 2, but the rejection of the appeal as incomplete was not a refusal to respond. The

Case 3:05-cv-05390-SI Document 5 Filed 03/13/06 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

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

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

Third, even if this court assumes the discussion of the failure to process his inmate

grievances and his request for trust account materials was simply Blackman's effort to anticipate

and avoid a dismissal for an incomplete in forma pauperis application and/or failure to exhaust,

there's no constitutional claim based on the underlying problem Blackman was trying to address

in his inmate grievance. He allegedly wanted to correspond confidentially with a correctional

officer and to have that officer promoted to a correctional sergeant to investigate his alleged

illegal imprisonment. There is no constitutional right to confidential correspondence with a

correctional officer or to have particular personnel decisions made by a government agency or

to have an investigator appointed.

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 clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2006 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05390-SI Document 5 Filed 03/13/06 Page 5 of 5