1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL S. BAREFIELD, No. 2:23-cv-01312-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to filing a complaint (ECF No. 1), he has filed an application to 19 proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2). As discussed below, the in forma pauperis application is 20 granted and the complaint is screened herein. 21 Leave 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 Complaint 27 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 28 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of 2 the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 3 may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 4 Id. § 1915A(b). 5 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to § 1915A and concludes that it 6 must be dismissed with leave to amend for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 7 granted. Plaintiff, an inmate at Mule Creek State Prison (MCSP), names four defendants: the 8 Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), the Warden of 9 MCSP, the Associate Director of the CDCR Office of Appeals, and the Mailroom Manager at 10 (MCSP). ECF No. 1 at 2, 7. Plaintiff alleges that, in 2021, while housed at MCSP, he did not 11 receive cards and postage stamps mailed to him by family members. Id. at 9-10. In November 12 2021, he filed an administrative grievance about problems receiving his mail. Id. at 11. After 13 the grievance was denied in January 2022, plaintiff filed an appeal, which was rejected as 14 untimely. Id. at 12. Plaintiff claims this denial was improper and that his grievance should have 15 been “adjudicated on the merits.” Id. In August 2022, plaintiff attempted to send a drawing to 16 his son, but it was returned to him even though he used proper procedures. Id. at 13-14. In 2023, 17 plaintiff received the cards family members sent to him in 2021. Id. at 14-15. Plaintiff claims 18 that defendants denied him the right to receive mail and violated his due process rights in the 19 handling of his grievance. Id. at 4-6. Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a cognizable federal 20 claim under the standards set forth below. 21 To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege: (1) the violation of a federal 22 constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under 23 the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 24 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the 25 facts establish the defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal 26 connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation. 27 See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 28 (9th Cir. 1978). That is, plaintiff may not sue any official on the theory that the official is liable 1 for the unconstitutional conduct of his or her subordinates. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 2 1948 (2009). In sum, plaintiff must identify the particular person or persons who violated his 3 rights. He must also plead facts showing how that particular person was involved in the alleged 4 violation. 5 1. Right to Receive Mail 6 Prisoners have “a First Amendment right to send and receive mail.” Witherow v. Paff, 52 7 F.3d 264, 265 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). Nevertheless, correctional institutions and jails have 8 a legitimate governmental interest in imposing certain restraints on inmate or detainee 9 correspondence to maintain order and security. See Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 413 10 (1974), overturned on other grounds by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 413–14 (1989). For 11 example, inmates and detainees may have their mail screened to ensure that there is no 12 contraband inside. Mangiaracina v. Penzone, 849 F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 2017). 13 A prison may adopt regulations or practices which impinge on a prisoner's First 14 Amendment rights as long as the regulations are “reasonably related to legitimate penological 15 interests.” See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). The Turner standard applies to 16 regulations and practices concerning all correspondence between prisoners and regulations 17 concerning incoming mail received by prisoners from non-prisoners. See Thornburgh, 490 U.S. 18 at 413. Prisoners also have a liberty interest in the receipt of mail, including subscription 19 publications, which triggers procedural due process guarantees. Krug v. Lutz, 329 F.3d 692, 696- 20 697 (9th Cir. 2003). If prison officials withhold mail, a prisoner has a due process right to receive 21 notice that his incoming mail is being withheld. See Frost v. Symington, 197 F.3d 348, 353-54 22 (9th Cir. 1999); see also Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145, 1152-53 (9th Cir. 2001) 23 (holding that due process rights apply to withheld mail where prisoners had constitutionally 24 protected right to receive the mail). A prisoner also has a due process right to appeal the 25 exclusion of mail to a prison official other than the one who made the initial exclusion decision. 26 See Krug, 329 F.3d at 697-98 & n.5. Here, plaintiff does not allege that any defendant 27 implemented a policy or procedure that resulted in his incoming mail being delayed, nor that any 28 defendant personally caused a violation of his constitutional rights. 1 2. No Right to Specific Grievance Procedure 2 “The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause protects persons against deprivations 3 of life, liberty, or property; and those who seek to invoke its procedural protection must establish 4 that one of these interests is at stake.” Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005).
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 MICHAEL S. BAREFIELD, No. 2:23-cv-01312-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to filing a complaint (ECF No. 1), he has filed an application to 19 proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2). As discussed below, the in forma pauperis application is 20 granted and the complaint is screened herein. 21 Leave 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 Complaint 27 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 28 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of 2 the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 3 may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 4 Id. § 1915A(b). 5 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to § 1915A and concludes that it 6 must be dismissed with leave to amend for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 7 granted. Plaintiff, an inmate at Mule Creek State Prison (MCSP), names four defendants: the 8 Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), the Warden of 9 MCSP, the Associate Director of the CDCR Office of Appeals, and the Mailroom Manager at 10 (MCSP). ECF No. 1 at 2, 7. Plaintiff alleges that, in 2021, while housed at MCSP, he did not 11 receive cards and postage stamps mailed to him by family members. Id. at 9-10. In November 12 2021, he filed an administrative grievance about problems receiving his mail. Id. at 11. After 13 the grievance was denied in January 2022, plaintiff filed an appeal, which was rejected as 14 untimely. Id. at 12. Plaintiff claims this denial was improper and that his grievance should have 15 been “adjudicated on the merits.” Id. In August 2022, plaintiff attempted to send a drawing to 16 his son, but it was returned to him even though he used proper procedures. Id. at 13-14. In 2023, 17 plaintiff received the cards family members sent to him in 2021. Id. at 14-15. Plaintiff claims 18 that defendants denied him the right to receive mail and violated his due process rights in the 19 handling of his grievance. Id. at 4-6. Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a cognizable federal 20 claim under the standards set forth below. 21 To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege: (1) the violation of a federal 22 constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under 23 the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 24 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the 25 facts establish the defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal 26 connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation. 27 See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 28 (9th Cir. 1978). That is, plaintiff may not sue any official on the theory that the official is liable 1 for the unconstitutional conduct of his or her subordinates. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 2 1948 (2009). In sum, plaintiff must identify the particular person or persons who violated his 3 rights. He must also plead facts showing how that particular person was involved in the alleged 4 violation. 5 1. Right to Receive Mail 6 Prisoners have “a First Amendment right to send and receive mail.” Witherow v. Paff, 52 7 F.3d 264, 265 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). Nevertheless, correctional institutions and jails have 8 a legitimate governmental interest in imposing certain restraints on inmate or detainee 9 correspondence to maintain order and security. See Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 413 10 (1974), overturned on other grounds by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 413–14 (1989). For 11 example, inmates and detainees may have their mail screened to ensure that there is no 12 contraband inside. Mangiaracina v. Penzone, 849 F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 2017). 13 A prison may adopt regulations or practices which impinge on a prisoner's First 14 Amendment rights as long as the regulations are “reasonably related to legitimate penological 15 interests.” See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). The Turner standard applies to 16 regulations and practices concerning all correspondence between prisoners and regulations 17 concerning incoming mail received by prisoners from non-prisoners. See Thornburgh, 490 U.S. 18 at 413. Prisoners also have a liberty interest in the receipt of mail, including subscription 19 publications, which triggers procedural due process guarantees. Krug v. Lutz, 329 F.3d 692, 696- 20 697 (9th Cir. 2003). If prison officials withhold mail, a prisoner has a due process right to receive 21 notice that his incoming mail is being withheld. See Frost v. Symington, 197 F.3d 348, 353-54 22 (9th Cir. 1999); see also Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145, 1152-53 (9th Cir. 2001) 23 (holding that due process rights apply to withheld mail where prisoners had constitutionally 24 protected right to receive the mail). A prisoner also has a due process right to appeal the 25 exclusion of mail to a prison official other than the one who made the initial exclusion decision. 26 See Krug, 329 F.3d at 697-98 & n.5. Here, plaintiff does not allege that any defendant 27 implemented a policy or procedure that resulted in his incoming mail being delayed, nor that any 28 defendant personally caused a violation of his constitutional rights. 1 2. No Right to Specific Grievance Procedure 2 “The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause protects persons against deprivations 3 of life, liberty, or property; and those who seek to invoke its procedural protection must establish 4 that one of these interests is at stake.” Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005). “The 5 Supreme court has held that a State creates a protected liberty by placing substantive limitations 6 on official discretion, [and] that to obtain a protectable right an individual must have a legitimate 7 claim of entitlement to it, [but] there is no legitimate claim of entitlement to a grievance 8 procedure.” Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988) (citations and quotations 9 omitted). Plaintiff's allegations of a due process violation arising from the processing of his 10 inmate grievance fails to state a claim because there is no protected liberty interest or independent 11 constitutional right to a prison administrative appeal or grievance system. Id.; see also Ramirez v. 12 Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[I]nmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement 13 to a specific prison grievance procedure.” (citing Mann, 855 F.2d at 640)). 14 Because plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim under these standards, his complaint is 15 dismissed with leave to amend in accordance with the requirements set forth in this order. 16 Leave to Amend 17 Plaintiff is cautioned that any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only 18 persons who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving him of his constitutional 19 rights. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the 20 deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to 21 perform an act he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). 22 The amended complaint must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants. 23 Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 24 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. See 25 George, 507 F.3d at 607. Nor may he bring multiple, unrelated claims against more than one 26 defendant. Id. 27 //// 28 //// 1 Conclusion 2 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 3 1. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted; 4 2. Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days 5 from the date of service of this order; and 6 3. Failure to comply with any part of this this order may result in dismissal of this action. roe ea 8 | DATED: September 20, 2023 EDMUND F. BRENNAN 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28