1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES DOUGLAS WOOTEN, No. 2:24-cv-02013-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CHRISTIE BARTEE, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action brought pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 20 2. 21 I. Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 22 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 23 Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 24 and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 25 1915(b)(1) and (2). 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 II. Screening 2 A. Legal Standards 3 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 4 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 5 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 6 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 7 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 8 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 9 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 11 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 12 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 13 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 14 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 15 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 16 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 17 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 18 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 19 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 20 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 21 678. 22 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 23 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 24 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 25 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 26 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 27 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 28 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 1 B. Analysis 2 Plaintiff sues Christie Bartee, “OSS II” in the mailroom at California State Prison, Solano. 3 He alleges that he attempted to mail two “confidential” letters on August 8, 2023. ECF No. 1 at 4 3. One of the letters was addressed to Kate Germond at Centurion in Princeton, New Jersey. Id. 5 Plaintiff does not state who the second letter was addressed to. Id. Plaintiff was seeking legal 6 assistance. Id. On November 2, 2023, the two letters were returned to plaintiff, opened and 7 unprocessed by the post office, and without any notice explaining why the letters had been 8 opened and not mailed. Id. “Someone” had held the mail for 83 days. Id. 9 The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows: 10 Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation 11 of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, 12 or other proper proceeding for redress. 13 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 14 actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See 15 Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 16 (1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the 17 meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or omits 18 to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which 19 complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 20 Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of 21 their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant 22 holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional 23 violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); 24 Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). Vague 25 and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights 26 violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 27 //// 28 //// 1 The complaint fails to allege any affirmative act or omission by defendant Bartee that 2 caused plaintiff’s mail to be opened outside his presence and not mailed. Additionally, it is not 3 clear from the complaint whether the letters mailed by plaintiff were “legal mail.” Compare 4 Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208-11 (9th Cir. 2017) (legal mail may not be opened 5 outside an inmate’s presence) with Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1095 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming 6 summary judgment on inmate’s mail claim where mail opened outside his presence was not legal 7 mail). Accordingly, the complaint must be dismissed with leave to amend.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES DOUGLAS WOOTEN, No. 2:24-cv-02013-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CHRISTIE BARTEE, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action brought pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 20 2. 21 I. Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 22 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 23 Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 24 and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 25 1915(b)(1) and (2). 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 II. Screening 2 A. Legal Standards 3 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 4 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 5 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 6 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 7 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 8 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 9 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 11 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 12 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 13 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 14 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 15 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 16 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 17 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 18 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 19 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 20 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 21 678. 22 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 23 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 24 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 25 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 26 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 27 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 28 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 1 B. Analysis 2 Plaintiff sues Christie Bartee, “OSS II” in the mailroom at California State Prison, Solano. 3 He alleges that he attempted to mail two “confidential” letters on August 8, 2023. ECF No. 1 at 4 3. One of the letters was addressed to Kate Germond at Centurion in Princeton, New Jersey. Id. 5 Plaintiff does not state who the second letter was addressed to. Id. Plaintiff was seeking legal 6 assistance. Id. On November 2, 2023, the two letters were returned to plaintiff, opened and 7 unprocessed by the post office, and without any notice explaining why the letters had been 8 opened and not mailed. Id. “Someone” had held the mail for 83 days. Id. 9 The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows: 10 Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation 11 of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, 12 or other proper proceeding for redress. 13 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 14 actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See 15 Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 16 (1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the 17 meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or omits 18 to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which 19 complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 20 Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of 21 their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant 22 holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional 23 violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); 24 Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). Vague 25 and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights 26 violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 27 //// 28 //// 1 The complaint fails to allege any affirmative act or omission by defendant Bartee that 2 caused plaintiff’s mail to be opened outside his presence and not mailed. Additionally, it is not 3 clear from the complaint whether the letters mailed by plaintiff were “legal mail.” Compare 4 Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208-11 (9th Cir. 2017) (legal mail may not be opened 5 outside an inmate’s presence) with Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1095 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming 6 summary judgment on inmate’s mail claim where mail opened outside his presence was not legal 7 mail). Accordingly, the complaint must be dismissed with leave to amend. 8 Leave to Amend. The court will grant plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended 9 complaint to attempt to cure the defects identified in this order. 10 Any amended complaint must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)’s 11 direction to state each claim in a short and plain manner. The amended complaint must contain 12 facts – not legal conclusions – supporting each element of the claims alleged. 13 Any amended complaint must not join unrelated claims. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14 18(a) allows a plaintiff to assert multiple claims when they are against a single defendant. 15 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) allows a plaintiff to join multiple defendants to a lawsuit 16 where the right to relief arises out of the same “transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions 17 or occurrences” and “any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the 18 action.” Unrelated claims against different defendants must therefore be pursued in separate 19 lawsuits. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). This rule is intended “not only 20 to prevent the sort of morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s], but also to 21 ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees— for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 22 3 the number of frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of the 23 required fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).” Id. 24 Any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally 25 participated in a substantial way in depriving him of a federal constitutional right. Johnson v. 26 Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a 27 constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is 28 legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). ] It must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 2 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims in the 3 || amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). 4 Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 5 || without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. 220. This is because an amended 6 || complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 7 || earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 8 | F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 9 || being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 10 | 1967)). 11 The court cautions plaintiff that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil 12 || Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order may result in this action being dismissed. 13 || See Local Rule 110. 14 Il. Order 15 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 16 1. Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. 17 2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected in 18 accordance with the notice to the California Department of Corrections and 19 Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. 20 3. The complaint is dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days of 21 this order. The amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case 22 and be titled “Amended Complaint.” 23 4. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be 24 dismissed for failure to state a claim and/or failure to prosecute. 25 || Dated: September 18, 2025 2 □□ lS? , 26 _ Slate PBEM EDMUND F. BRENNAN 27 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28