Russell S. Grant v. White, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 12, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01935
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUSSELL S. GRANT, No. 2:25-cv-1935-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 WHITE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a county jail inmate 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). He has also filed two motions for preliminary injunction 20 (ECF No. 5, ECF No. 9). As discussed below, the in forma pauperis application is granted, the 21 two motions for preliminary injunction are denied, and the complaint is screened herein. 22 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 23 Plaintiff's application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 24 Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 25 and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 26 1915(b)(1) and (2). 27 //// 28 //// 1 Screening 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 of 5 the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 6 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) (discussing 14 the predecessor to modern § 1915(e)(2), former § 1915(d)). Thus, § 1915(e)(2) allows judges to 15 dismiss a claim based on factual allegations that are clearly baseless, such as facts describing 16 “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 a 28 cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 1 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial 2 plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads 3 factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable 4 for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states 5 a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 6 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 7 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 8 Factual Allegations 9 Plaintiff sues officials of the South Placer County Jail, including two deputies (Caruthers 10 and White), a sergeant (Fichou), and a lieutenant (Welsh). He alleges that he gave Caruthers or 11 White four items of outgoing mail between February 12, 2025 and February 21, 2025, but 12 Caruthers and White failed to post his letters. The four letters were addressed to 1) the Nation of 13 Islam in Chicago, 2) the Nation of Islam in Los Angeles, 3) NBC Dateline News, and 4) the 14 California Department of Justice (California DOJ) (privileged mail). ECF No. 1 at 5 ¶ 8; id. at 15 19-20 ¶¶ 75-77. Plaintiff alleges Caruthers and White discarded his outgoing letters because of a 16 conspiracy to conceal the harm done to him in his criminal proceedings.1 Id. at 19 ¶ 74. 17 Plaintiff filed two grievances about the mail handling. Id. at 20 ¶ 79; id. at 22 ¶ 83. 18 Fichou denied both grievances at the first level of response, stating that video showed plaintiff’s 19 mail was taken to the front of the jail, and that the mail had not been mishandled or stopped from 20 leaving the jail. Id. at 21 ¶ 80; id. at 22 ¶ 85. Welsh denied both grievances at the second level of 21 review, stating that plaintiff’s mail had been properly handled within the jail facility.2 Id. at 21 ¶ 22 81; id. at 22 ¶ 86. He alleges his grievances put Fichou and Welsh on notice of mail handling 23 issues. Id. at 24-25 ¶ 93; id. at 25-26 ¶ 95.

24 1 Plaintiff was apparently attempting through his letters to call attention to aspects of his criminal proceedings and his incarceration which he maintains were unjust. He describes his 25 issues at length. See ECF No. 1 at 5-18 ¶¶ 8-71; id. at 24 ¶ 92. He also references a civil complaint he filed in January 2025 alleging negligence and malpractice. Id. at 17 ¶ 65. 26 2 Plaintiff also references an earlier, unrelated grievance which he had filed on January 8, 27 2025, and which complained that an item of legal mail had been opened by non-defendant officer Oliver. ECF No. 1 at 25-26 ¶¶ 93-95. 28 1 Plaintiff alleges that Fichou and Welsh failed to take supervisory corrective action, and 2 therefore Caruthers, White, and other officers continued to discard plaintiff’s outgoing mail, 3 including additional letters plaintiff gave to officers in April, May, and June 2025. Apparently, 4 the reason plaintiff believes the letters were not posted in April, May, and June is that he has not 5 received response from the organizations to which he addressed the mail. See id. at 27 ¶ 97 6 (plaintiff has yet to hear back from the Equal Justice Initiative); id. at ¶ 98 (in a phone call, the 7 receptionist at the NAACP told plaintiff they would have returned his mail with a letter 8 explaining they do not accept mail from inmates); id. at 28 ¶ 100 (plaintiff has yet to hear back 9 from a Sacramento Bee journalist). 10 Claim I: First Amendment (Mail & Civil Conspiracy) 11 Prisoners have “a First Amendment right to send and receive mail.” Witherow v. Paff, 52 12 F.3d 264, 265 (9th Cir. 1995). Plaintiff’s does not offer any factual basis for his allegation that 13 Caruthers and White did not send the outgoing letters that he gave them in February 2025. 14 Plaintiff apparently believes that letters he subsequently gave to prison officials in April, May, 15 and June 2025 were likewise discarded because he did not receive response from the recipients to 16 whom the letters were addressed. This is not a plausible basis to conclude that prison officials 17 discarded his outgoing letters, whether in February 2025 or thereafter. None of the recipients had 18 any obligation to respond to plaintiff. The complaint does not allege facts from which the court 19 could reasonably infer that Caruthers or White discarded or failed to post plaintiff’s outgoing mail 20 in February 2025. 21 Plaintiff’s conspiracy allegation is similarly unsupported with factual allegations. A claim 22 of conspiracy under § 1983 must plausibly allege “(1) the existence of an express or implied 23 agreement among the defendant officers to deprive [plaintiff] of his constitutional rights; and (2) 24 an actual deprivation of those rights resulting from that agreement.” Avalos v. Baca, 596 F.3d 25 583, 592 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Ivey v. Board of Regents, 674 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) 26 (“Vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not 27 sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.”). Plaintiff asserts his belief that officials of the 28 Placer County Superior Court have “enlisted” jail deputies to interfere with plaintiff’s outgoing 1 mail and privileged mail because plaintiff has filed a civil lawsuit against them. ECF No. 1 at 18- 2 19 ¶ 72; see also id. at 17 ¶ 65. But plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that his outgoing mail was 3 not posted, or that there was express or implied agreement among the defendants and/or with 4 officials of the Superior Court to discard plaintiff’s outgoing mail. Plaintiff’s claim for violation 5 of his rights under the First Amendment, and/or a civil conspiracy to do so, will be dismissed. 6 The court will give plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint to state an actionable claim. 7 Claim II: Due Process 8 Plaintiff alleges a second claim which he designates as a violation of his right to due 9 process, based on the same facts. ECF No. 1 at 23. The narrative of plaintiff’s complaint 10 indicates that he had the status of a pre-trial detainee as of February 2025 when Caruthers and 11 White allegedly discarded his mail.3 Sed id. at 18. As a pre-trial detainee, his rights derive from 12 the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.4 See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 537 13 n.16 (1979). 14 To state a claim for violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due 15 process, plaintiff must allege facts showing: “(1) a deprivation of a constitutionally protected 16 liberty or property interest, and (2) a denial of adequate procedural protections.” Kildare v. 17 Saenz, 325 F.3d 1078, 1085 (9th Cir. 2003). As discussed, the complaint does not plausibly 18 allege a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutionally-protected right to send mail. The complaint 19 equally fails to allege that defendants denied him adequate procedural protections and, indeed, 20 alleges that plaintiff filed two grievances which were investigated and received response. As to 21 the latter point, it is unclear whether plaintiff may be alleging that Fichou and Welsh violated his 22 due process rights because they denied his grievances. If so, this claim must fail. See Gonzalez v. 23 3 As of December 4, 2024, plaintiff’s defense attorney apparently advised plaintiff to 24 accept a plea deal. ECF No. 1 at 15 ¶¶ 55-57. As of February 19, 2025, the court set a date for a Marsden hearing, which is an in camera proceeding to appoint new counsel. Id. at 18 ¶ 69; see 25 People v. Marsden, 2 Cal. 3d 118, 84 Cal. Rptr. 156, 465 P.2d 44 (1970) (a criminal defendant bringing a motion to substitute new counsel is entitled to an opportunity to state the reasons for 26 his request).

27 4 The complaint mislabels plaintiff’s due process claim as arising under the First Amendment. ECF No. 1 at 23. The claim must arise, if at all, under the Fourteenth Amendment. 28 1 Mullen, 446 F. App’x 17, 18 (9th Cir. 2011) (a prisoner has no due process right to the handling 2 of grievances in any particular manner). 3 Plaintiff’s claim for violation of his due process rights will be dismissed. The court will 4 give plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint to state an actionable claim. 5 Supervisory Liability 6 To the extent plaintiff sues Fichou and Welsh based solely on their supervisory roles, his 7 claims are barred because “supervisors may be held liable only if they participated in or directed 8 the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Marines v. Pogue, 9 No. 1:25-cv-00020-BAM, 2025 WL 2444104, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2025) (quoting Taylor v. 10 List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (cleaned up)). At most, plaintiff’s complaint implies 11 that Fichou and Welsh made a policy to discard plaintiff’s outgoing mail. But this is insufficient. 12 “Conclusory allegations that a supervisor promulgated unconstitutional policies and procedures 13 which authorized their subordinates’ unconstitutional conduct are speculative and do not suffice 14 to state a claim of supervisory liability.” Marines, 2025 WL 2444104, at *4 (citing Keates v. 15 Koile, 883 F.3d 1228, 1243 (9th Cir. 2018). To the extent plaintiff wishes to pursue claims 16 against Fichou and Welsh, his claims must be based on their own participation in constitutional 17 violations, or plausible allegations they promulgated an unconstitutional policy. 18 Motions For Preliminary Injunction 19 Plaintiff has filed two motions requesting a preliminary injunction. ECF Nos. 5, 9. A 20 preliminary injunction may be issued upon a showing “that immediate and irreparable injury, 21 loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” 22 Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). To be entitled to preliminary injunctive relief, a party must 23 demonstrate “that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm 24 in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an 25 injunction is in the public interest.” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 26 2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 27 249 (2008)). The purpose of the order is to preserve the status quo and to prevent irreparable 28 harm “just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer,” Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. 1 Brotherhood of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974), and to prevent threatened injury that would 2 impair the court's ability to grant effective relief in a pending action. Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. 3 Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984); Gon v. First State Ins. Co., 871 F.2d 4 863 (9th Cir. 1989). A preliminary injunction represents the exercise of a far-reaching power not 5 to be indulged except in a case clearly warranting it. Dymo Indus. v. Tapeprinter, Inc., 326 F.2d 6 141, 143 (9th Cir. 1964). 7 Plaintiff’s first motion for preliminary injunction was filed concurrently with his 8 complaint and repeats many of the complaint’s allegations.5 ECF No. 5. Plaintiff asks the court 9 to order defendants to stop interfering or tampering with his outgoing mail. Id. at 14-15. Plaintiff 10 argues he has demonstrated that defendants have not allowed him to communicate with the 11 outside world and the media and they have violated his constitutional rights in a concerted effort 12 by discarding his mail. Id. at 10 ¶¶ 26-28. He asserts he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he 13 will suffer irreparable harm and be unable to communicate with the outside world if an injunction 14 is not granted, that injunctive relief will not harm defendants, and that it is in the public interest to 15 grant him the injunction he seeks. Id. at 11-14. 16 Plaintiff’s second motion for preliminary injunction repeats the allegations of his first 17 motion, and it adds that in July 2025 he gave prison officials four more letters to which he has not 18 received response.6 ECF No. 9. Plaintiff repeats his arguments for an injunction ordering that 19 defendants not interfere or tamper with his outgoing mail. Id. at 16. 20 Plaintiff has not shown that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims that prison 21 officials have discarded his outgoing letters. Plaintiff has also requested injunctive relief in his 22 complaint. ECF No. 1 at 31. If plaintiff files an amended complaint that states an actionable 23 claim, and if evidence at trial proves that injunctive relief is warranted, the court may issue such

24 5 Plaintiff attaches his declaration to his first motion for preliminary injunction. ECF No. 5 at 16-23. The declaration again describes issues with his criminal proceedings, and his 25 subsequent letters of April, May, and June 2025 addressed to the Nation of Islam, NBC Dateline News, the California DOJ, the Equal Justice Initiative, the NAACP, and the Sacramento Bee. 26 6 These July 2025 letters were addressed to 1) the Prison Legal News requesting an 27 interview, 2) the United States Department of Justice, 3) FOX 40 News (plaintiff thereafter spoke to a news reporter on the phone but has not heard back from them), and 4) CBS-CW-Channel 31. 28 ECF No. 9 at 8-11 ¶¶ 24-36. 1 relief at that time. 2 Leave to Amend 3 Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. If plaintiff chooses to file an 4 amended complaint, the amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who 5 personally participated in a substantial way in depriving him of a federal constitutional right. 6 Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation 7 of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another's act or omits to perform an act 8 he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). The amended complaint must 9 contain a caption including the names of all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). The amended 10 complaint should also describe, in sufficient detail, how each defendant personally violated or 11 participated in the violation of his rights. The court will not infer the identify of defendants, nor 12 the existence of allegations that have not been explicitly set forth in the amended complaint. 13 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. See 14 George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Nor may he bring multiple, unrelated claims 15 against more than one defendant. Id. The amended complaint should include only claims that are 16 related because they concern the same event (or series of related events) or the same defendant. 17 Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it is complete in itself without 18 reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 19 complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 20 earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 21 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (“the ‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 22 being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 23 1967)). 24 Finally, the court notes that any amended complaint should be as concise as possible in 25 fulfilling the above requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should avoid the inclusion of 26 procedural or factual background which has no bearing on his legal claims. The court cautions 27 plaintiff that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this court's Local Rules, 28 or any court order may result in this action being dismissed. See Local Rule 110. 1 Conclusion 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED; 4 2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected in 5 accordance with the notice to the California Department of Corrections and 6 Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith; 7 3. Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 5 and ECF No. 9) are DENIED 8 without prejudice. 9 4. Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED with leave to amend within 30 days 10 of services of this order; and 11 5. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this action for the reasons 12 stated herein. 13 DATED: February 12, 2026

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28