1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES RAY BAKER, No. 2:23-cv-02610-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CERVANTES, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983, has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 6, 8.1 Further, 19 his complaint is before the court for screening. 20 I. Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 21 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 22 Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 23 and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1915(b)(1) and (2). 25 //// 26 //// 27 1 This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 28 636(b)(1). 1 II. Screening Requirement and Standards 2 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 3 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 4 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 5 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 6 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 7 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 8 This standard is echoed in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which requires that courts dismiss a 9 case in which a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis at any time if it determines, among other 10 things, that the action “is frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be 11 granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” “[The] 12 term ‘frivolous,’ when applied to a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, 13 but also the fanciful factual allegation.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) 14 (discussing the predecessor to modern § 1915(e)(2), former § 1915(d)). Thus, § 1915(e)(2) 15 allows judges to dismiss a claim based on factual allegations that are clearly baseless, such as 16 facts describing “fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Id. at 327-38. 17 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 19 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 20 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 21 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 22 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 23 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 24 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 25 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 26 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 27 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 28 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 1 678. 2 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 3 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 4 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 5 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 6 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 7 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 8 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 9 III. Screening Order 10 A. Allegations of the Complaint. 11 Plaintiff alleges that defendant Cervantes, a law librarian at High Desert State Prison, 12 refused to allow plaintiff “my minimum of four hours per week access to the law library” 13 between March 27, 2023 and April 6, 2023. ECF No. 1. During this period, plaintiff had been 14 granted priority to use the library to prepare for a settlement conference in James Ray Baker v. R. 15 Chacon, et al., E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:22-cv-00878 (hereinafter “Chacon”). Defendant was biased 16 against plaintiff “for an allege[d rules violation] I was in the hole for.” Id. Because he could not 17 access the library as needed, plaintiff “had to dismiss” Chacon. Plaintiff sues Cervantes for 18 denying his right to access the courts in violation of the First Amendment. 19 B. Analysis 20 Plaintiff has a constitutional right of access to the courts. Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 21 1090, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2001) overruled on other grounds as stated by Richey v. Dahne, 807 F.3d 22 1202, 1209 n.6 (9th Cir. 2015). That right is limited to non-frivolous direct criminal appeals, 23 habeas corpus proceedings, and § 1983 actions. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354-55 (1996). 24 To state a claim for denial of the right to access the courts, a prisoner must allege facts 25 showing that he has suffered “actual injury,” a jurisdictional requirement derived from the 26 standing doctrine. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 349. An “actual injury” is “actual prejudice with respect to 27 contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a 28 claim.” Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348 (citation and internal quotations omitted); see also Alvarez v. Hill, 1 518 F.3d 1152, 1155 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Failure to show that a ‘non-frivolous legal claim had 2 been frustrated’ is fatal” to a claim for denial of access to legal materials) (quoting Lewis, 518 3 U.S. at 353 & 353 n. 4). For backward-looking denial of access claims (such as this one), where 4 the defendant’s conduct “caused the loss or inadequate settlement” of a case, “the complaint must 5 identify a remedy that may be awarded as recompense but not otherwise available in some suit 6 that may yet be brought.” Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 413-15 (2002). 7 A plaintiff must also allege that the defendant’s conduct prevented him from pursuing a 8 non-frivolous case. Harbury, 536 U.S. at 415; Lewis, 518 U.S. at 353 & n.3; Allen v. Sakai, 48 9 F.3d 1082, 1085 & n.12 (9th Cir. 1994). A claim “is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis 10 either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.
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 RAY BAKER, No. 2:23-cv-02610-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CERVANTES, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983, has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 6, 8.1 Further, 19 his complaint is before the court for screening. 20 I. Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 21 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 22 Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 23 and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1915(b)(1) and (2). 25 //// 26 //// 27 1 This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 28 636(b)(1). 1 II. Screening Requirement and Standards 2 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 3 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 4 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 5 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 6 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 7 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 8 This standard is echoed in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which requires that courts dismiss a 9 case in which a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis at any time if it determines, among other 10 things, that the action “is frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be 11 granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” “[The] 12 term ‘frivolous,’ when applied to a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, 13 but also the fanciful factual allegation.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) 14 (discussing the predecessor to modern § 1915(e)(2), former § 1915(d)). Thus, § 1915(e)(2) 15 allows judges to dismiss a claim based on factual allegations that are clearly baseless, such as 16 facts describing “fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Id. at 327-38. 17 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 19 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 20 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 21 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 22 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 23 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 24 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 25 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 26 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 27 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 28 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 1 678. 2 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 3 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 4 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 5 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 6 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 7 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 8 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 9 III. Screening Order 10 A. Allegations of the Complaint. 11 Plaintiff alleges that defendant Cervantes, a law librarian at High Desert State Prison, 12 refused to allow plaintiff “my minimum of four hours per week access to the law library” 13 between March 27, 2023 and April 6, 2023. ECF No. 1. During this period, plaintiff had been 14 granted priority to use the library to prepare for a settlement conference in James Ray Baker v. R. 15 Chacon, et al., E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:22-cv-00878 (hereinafter “Chacon”). Defendant was biased 16 against plaintiff “for an allege[d rules violation] I was in the hole for.” Id. Because he could not 17 access the library as needed, plaintiff “had to dismiss” Chacon. Plaintiff sues Cervantes for 18 denying his right to access the courts in violation of the First Amendment. 19 B. Analysis 20 Plaintiff has a constitutional right of access to the courts. Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 21 1090, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2001) overruled on other grounds as stated by Richey v. Dahne, 807 F.3d 22 1202, 1209 n.6 (9th Cir. 2015). That right is limited to non-frivolous direct criminal appeals, 23 habeas corpus proceedings, and § 1983 actions. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354-55 (1996). 24 To state a claim for denial of the right to access the courts, a prisoner must allege facts 25 showing that he has suffered “actual injury,” a jurisdictional requirement derived from the 26 standing doctrine. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 349. An “actual injury” is “actual prejudice with respect to 27 contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a 28 claim.” Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348 (citation and internal quotations omitted); see also Alvarez v. Hill, 1 518 F.3d 1152, 1155 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Failure to show that a ‘non-frivolous legal claim had 2 been frustrated’ is fatal” to a claim for denial of access to legal materials) (quoting Lewis, 518 3 U.S. at 353 & 353 n. 4). For backward-looking denial of access claims (such as this one), where 4 the defendant’s conduct “caused the loss or inadequate settlement” of a case, “the complaint must 5 identify a remedy that may be awarded as recompense but not otherwise available in some suit 6 that may yet be brought.” Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 413-15 (2002). 7 A plaintiff must also allege that the defendant’s conduct prevented him from pursuing a 8 non-frivolous case. Harbury, 536 U.S. at 415; Lewis, 518 U.S. at 353 & n.3; Allen v. Sakai, 48 9 F.3d 1082, 1085 & n.12 (9th Cir. 1994). A claim “is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis 10 either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). To properly plead a 11 denial of access to the courts claim, “the complaint should state the underlying claim in 12 accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), just as if it were being independently 13 pursued, and a like plain statement should describe any remedy available under the access claim 14 and presently unique to it.” Harbury, 536 U.S. at 417-18. 15 A review of the Chacon docket, of which the court takes judicial notice pursuant to 16 Federal Rule of Evidence 201, reveals that plaintiff stipulated to voluntarily dismiss the case with 17 prejudice following a successful settlement conference. From the allegations of the complaint, it 18 appears that plaintiff alleges that he would not have dismissed the case had he been armed with 19 adequate legal research, which defendant Cervantes denied him. However, plaintiff does not state 20 the claim(s) he pursued in Chacon nor any facts showing how the lack of legal research impacted 21 that case (i.e., whether and why the lack of research prevented him from taking the case to trial or 22 seeking a higher settlement value). 23 Leave to Amend. The court will grant plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended 24 complaint to attempt to cure the defects identified in this order. 25 Any amended complaint must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)’s 26 direction to state each claim in a short and plain manner. The amended complaint must contain 27 facts – not legal conclusions – supporting each element of the claims alleged. 28 //// 1 Any amended complaint must not join unrelated claims. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 2 18(a) allows a plaintiff to assert multiple claims when they are against a single defendant. 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) allows a plaintiff to join multiple defendants to a lawsuit 4 where the right to relief arises out of the same “transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions 5 or occurrences” and “any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the 6 action.” Unrelated claims against different defendants must therefore be pursued in separate 7 lawsuits. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). This rule is intended “not only 8 to prevent the sort of morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s], but also to 9 ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees— for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 10 3 the number of frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of the 11 required fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).” Id. 12 Any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally 13 participated in a substantial way in depriving him of a federal constitutional right. Johnson v. 14 Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a 15 constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is 16 legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). 17 It must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 18 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims in the 19 amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). 20 Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 21 without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 22 complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 23 earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 24 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 25 being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 26 1967)). 27 The court cautions plaintiff that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil 28 Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order may result in this action being dismissed. 1 || See Local Rule 110. 2 | IV. Summary of Order 3 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 4 1. Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 6) is granted. 5 2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected 6 in accordance with the notice to the California Department of Corrections and 7 Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. 8 3. The complaint is dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint within 30 9 days of service of this order. The amended complaint must bear the docket 10 number assigned to this case and be titled “Amended Complaint.” Failure to 11 comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be 12 dismissed for failure to state a claim and/or failure to prosecute. 13 14 || Dated: May 29, 2024 Dorn JA Bb Mth Lok blige oe AUF UNITED SEATS MAGISTRATE UNOS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28