(PC) Haywood v. Scottini

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: July 31, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01794
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CAMERON LEE HAYWOOD, Case No. 2:25-cv-1794-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SCOTTINI, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this § 1983 action against correctional 19 officer Scottini. ECF No. 1. The allegations fail to state a claim. Plaintiff may, if he chooses, 20 file an amended complaint that addresses the deficiencies noted herein. I will grant plaintiff’s 21 application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. 22 Screening and Pleading Requirements 23 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 24 in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 25 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 26 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 27 relief. Id. 28 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 2 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 3 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 4 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 5 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 6 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 7 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 8 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 9 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 10 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 11 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 12 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 13 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 14 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 15 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 16 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 17 Analysis 18 Plaintiff alleges that in July 2022, while he was in the Ad-Seg building at California State 19 Prison, Sacramento, defendant Scottini took plaintiff’s legal mail, refused to sign it in front of 20 plaintiff, and gave the mail back.1 ECF No. 1 at 3. Plaintiff further alleges that “my civil 21 lawsuits had time restraints and could [have] been dismissed.”2 Id. 22 The complaint fails to state a claim. Prisoners “have a protected First Amendment interest 23 in having properly marked legal mail opened only in their presence.” See Hayes v. Idaho Corr. 24 Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1211 (9th Cir. 2017); see also O’Keefe v. Van Boening, 82 F.3d 322, 325 25 (9th Cir. 1996) (prison officials’ policy of “inspect[ing] the contents of all incoming and outgoing 26

27 1 It is unclear whether plaintiff is alleging that defendant gave the legal mail back to plaintiff or back to an unidentified person. 28 2 The court presumes this allegation is referencing the legal mail at issue. 1 legal mail” outside the presence of the prisoner may have an impermissible “chilling” effect on 2 the constitutional right to petition the government). At most, plaintiff alleges that defendant took 3 plaintiff’s legal mail, did not sign it, and handed it back to plaintiff or another person. There is no 4 allegation that defendant opened or read the mail. 5 If plaintiff is attempting to allege an access to courts claim, then that claim would also 6 fail. In order to allege a First Amendment access-to-courts claim, plaintiff must allege that he 7 suffered an actual injury as a result of the destruction of his legal material. See Lewis v. Casey, 8 518 U.S. 343, 348-53 (1996) (access-to-courts claim requires the plaintiff to show that the 9 defendant’s conduct caused actual injury to a non-frivolous legal claim). Here, plaintiff alleges 10 that he could have missed a deadline for a civil suit; he does not allege that he did miss a deadline 11 because of defendant’s action. 12 As for plaintiff’s reference to a Fourteenth Amendment claim, there are no allegations to 13 support such a claim. There is no allegation that defendant intentionally treated plaintiff 14 differently from others who were similarly situated without a rational basis, see N. Pacifica LLC 15 v. City of Pacifica, 526 F.3d 478, 486 (9th Cir. 2008), or intentionally discriminated against him 16 on the basis of his membership in a protected class, see Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 17 1158, 1166 (9th Cir. 2005). The allegation that plaintiff was temporarily deprived of his property 18 also fails to state a due process claim because he has an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See 19 Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (prisoner failed to state due process claim 20 for deprivation of property because California law provides an adequate post-deprivation 21 remedy). 22 Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim. I will allow 23 plaintiff a chance to amend his complaint before recommending that this action be dismissed. If 24 plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint will supersede the current 25 one. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means 26 that the amended complaint will need to be complete on its face without reference to the prior 27 pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the current one no 28 longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in the original, plaintiff will 1 | need to assert each claim and allege each defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The 2 | amended complaint should be titled “First Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case 3 | number. If plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, I will recommend that this action be 4 | dismissed. 5 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 6 1. Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED. 7 2. Plaintiffs complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with leave to amend. 8 3. Within thirty days from service of this order, plaintiff shall file either (1) an amended 9 | complaint or (2) notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice. 10 4. Failure to timely file either an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal may 11 } result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed 12 || with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 13 5. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a complaint form with this order. 14 1s IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ July 31, 2025 q——— 17 JEREMY D. PETERSON 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28