Opinion ID: 614205
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Silva's first amended complaint

Text: On January 16, 2008, Silva amended his complaint, this time suing Di Vittorio; Washington State Attorney General, Rob McKenna (McKenna); the Governor of Washington State, Christine Gregoire (Gregoire); a number of WDOC and Corrections Corporation officials; Corrections Corporation itself; and Trans-Cor Corporation, a prisoner transportation company (collectively the Defendants). In his first amended complaint (amended complaint), Silva reasserted his claim under § 1983 that the Defendants violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment right to access the courts and also alleged that the Defendants retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment. Specifically, Silva alleged that as soon as he began pursuing civil rights lawsuits against prison officials, those officials began transferring him within and among prison facilities in Washington and Arizona and confiscating and destroying his legal documents and materials. According to Silva's amended complaint, the Defendants' actions proximately caused at least six cases to be dismissed, and hampered his ability to report the officials' misconduct and to bring any future cases. In his amended complaint, Silva also added a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968. Silva alleged that his transfer to, and housing in, the FCC violated the RICO statute, specifically contending that the Defendants engaged in numerous instances of racketeering activity in violation of § 1961(1), including kidnapping, mail and wire fraud, witness tampering, and seizure of legal documents. Finally, Silva alleged that the Defendants' seizure of his legal files constituted conversion. [2] Again the district court screened Silva's amended complaint pursuant to § 1915A, this time reaching the merits. The district court concluded that Silva's amended complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and dismissed the case with prejudice. Specifically, citing Lancaster Community Hospital v. Antelope Valley Hospital District, 940 F.2d 397, 404 (9th Cir.1991), the district court determined that Silva failed to state a RICO claim because he failed to allege sufficient facts to establish a pattern of racketeering activity, he failed to allege an injury to his business or property, and because government entities cannot violate RICO. Additionally, the district court concluded that Silva's transfer to the FCC in Arizona did not constitute an act of kidnapping under § 1961(1). As to Silva's right to access the courts claim, the district court stated that the right is only a right to bring petitions or complaints to the federal court and not a right to discover such claims or even to litigate them effectively once filed with a court. Because the factual allegations underlying Silva's access to courts claim were targeted at his ability to effectively litigate his cases beyond the pleading stage the district court determined that Silva failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The district court also found that Silva did not state a claim for retaliation because he failed to identify specific retaliatory acts carried out by specific defendants and failed to precisely describe his conduct that prompted the Defendants to retaliate against him. Finally, the district court concluded that, without the federal claims, it did not have diversity jurisdiction over Silva's claim for common law conversion because Silva failed to allege an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000. Stating that its discretion to deny or grant leave to amend is particularly broad where Plaintiff has previously been permitted to amend his complaint, and that the defects in Silva's amended complaint could not be corrected, the district court dismissed Silva's case without leave to amend.