(PC) McCraven v. Solano County Justice Center

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: August 1, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01012
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JESSICA MARIE McCRAVEN, Case No. 2:23-cv-01012-JDP (PC) 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 SOLANO COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff is a county inmate proceeding without counsel in this action brought under 42 17 U.S.C. § 1983.1 Plaintiff claims that her First Amendment rights have been violated by 18 defendants’ policy of banning any mail using cardstock, such as greeting cards and postcards. I 19 find that the complaint cannot be served at this time because plaintiff has not alleged a cognizable 20 claim. I will grant her leave to amend, and I will also grant her application to proceed in forma 21 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 27

28 1 It is unclear whether plaintiff is a pretrial detainee or convicted inmate. 1 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 2 relief. Id. 3 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 5 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 6 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 7 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 8 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 9 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 10 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 11 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 12 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 13 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 14 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 15 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 16 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 17 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 18 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 19 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 20 Plaintiff’s Allegations 21 Plaintiff alleges that Solano County Justice Center maintains a policy that restricts inmates 22 from receiving mail written or printed on card stock. ECF No. 1 at 3. Facility Commander Lt. 23 Hagen states that this is for the safety and security of the facility, but plaintiff asserts that there 24 are alternative methods of ensuring safety and security without banning these mail items. 25 Plaintiff claims that the policy interferes with inmates’ ability to communicate with family, 26 friends, and religious groups, and with their ability to connect with “the resources that we need to 27 rehabilitate our lives.” Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages. 28 1 Discussion 2 Inmates have a First Amendment right to receive mail. See Witherow v. Paff, 52 F.3d 264, 3 265 (9th Cir. 1995). However, a prison may adopt regulations that impinge on an inmate’s 4 constitutional rights if those regulations are “reasonably related to legitimate penological 5 interests.” Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). Legitimate penological interests include 6 “security, order, and rehabilitation.” Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 413 (1974). When a 7 prison regulation affects outgoing mail as opposed to incoming mail, there must be a “closer fit 8 between the regulation and the purpose it serves.” Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 412 9 (1989). However, in neither case must the regulation satisfy a “least restrictive means” test. Id. 10 at 411-13 (discussing Procunier, 416 U.S. 396). 11 I find that plaintiff has not established that she has standing to challenge defendants’ mail 12 policy. To establish constitutional standing, plaintiff “must allege (1) a distinct and palpable 13 injury-in-fact that is (2) fairly traceable to the challenged provision or interpretation and 14 (3) would likely be redressed by a favorable decision.” Santa Monica Food Not Bombs v. City of 15 Santa Monica, 450 F.3d 1022, 1033 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and ellipsis 16 omitted). Here, there is no allegation that mail addressed to plaintiff has been rejected due to the 17 jail’s mail policy. Absent injury, plaintiff does not have standing to proceed. 18 Furthermore, plaintiff suggests that she is bringing this lawsuit on behalf of herself and all 19 inmates housed at Solano County Justice Center. However, a plaintiff may file a pro se action 20 only on her own behalf; she cannot represent other plaintiffs if filing pro se. See 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1654 (2009) (parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally in all federal courts); 22 see also Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664-65 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting an individual 23 appearing pro se may not represent other individuals in federal court). 24 Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that addresses these deficiencies. She is advised 25 that any amended complaint will supersede the current one. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F. 26 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the amended complaint will need to be 27 complete on its face without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once 28 an amended complaint is filed, the current complaint no longer serves any function. Therefore, in 1 | an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need to assert each claim and 2 | allege each defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled 3 | “Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. 4 Conclusion 5 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 6 1. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED. 7 2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff may file an amended 8 | complaint. If she does not, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 9 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form. 10 Wl IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ( ie — Dated: _ July 31, 2023 aw—— 13 JEREMY D. PETERSON 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28