Maury v. Seamon

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: September 23, 2022
• Docket: 4:22-cv-04463
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ROBERT E. MAURY, Case No. 22-cv-04463-JSW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9

10 C. SEAMON, et al., Defendants. 11

12 INTRODUCTION 13 Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint under 14 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials at San Quentin State Prison and the California Department of 15 Corrections and Rehabilitation. He is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate 16 order. For the reasons discussed below, the case is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable 17 claim for relief. 18 STANDARD OF REVIEW 19 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 20 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 21 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims 22 which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 23 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se 24 pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th 25 Cir. 1990). 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the 27 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; the 1 which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although 2 in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's 3 obligation to provide the 'grounds of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and 4 conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . 5 Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell 6 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint 7 must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 1974. 8 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) 9 that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the 10 alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 11 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 12 DISCUSSION 13 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Seamon removed him from his prison job, after previously 14 reducing his pay rate. Plaintiff claims that Seamon violated provisions of the California Code of 15 Regulations and the prison’s Departmental Operations Manual. He claims that Defendants 16 Broomfield and Gipson did not adequately supervise or train Seamon, which allowed Seamon to 17 be “negligent in his duties.” Plaintiff also alleges that his administrative grievances were not 18 properly handled. 19 The violation of state law, the violation of a prison operations manual, and the state-law 20 tort of negligence are not violations of federal law, which is an essential element of a Section 1983 21 claim. See West, 487 U.S. at 48; DeShaney v. Winnebago County Social Servs. Dep't, 489 U.S. 22 189, 201-03 (1989) (Section 1983 does not impose liability for violations of duties of care arising 23 out of state tort law); Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986) (Due Process Clause is not 24 implicated by a state official's negligent act causing unintended loss or injury to life, liberty, or 25 property). Consequently, plaintiff’s claims are not cognizable under Section 1983.1 26 Amendment would be futile because neither his loss of a prison job nor the ineffective 27 1 handling of his administrative grievances violated federal law. There is no constitutional right to a 2 || job or rehabilitation in prison, Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1254-55 (9th Cir. 1982) (no right 3 to job); see also Lyon y. Farrier, 727 F.2d 766, 769 (8th Cir.1984) (whatever liberty or property 4 || interests inhere in prison employment are the product of state law), or to an administrative 5 grievance system, see Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff is therefore 6 || not granted leave to amend. 7 CONCLUSION 8 For the foregoing reasons, the case is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which 9 || relief may be granted. 10 The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 || Dated: September 23, 2022 5 13 f } Ltd. Site IEFPREY §. WHITE 15 United Sates Déatrict Judge 16

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28