1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SAMUEL DURWOOD BRIANS, et al., Case No. 26-cv-01197-JSC
8 Plaintiffs, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 9 v. TO AMEND
10 TAMRA FALLMAN, et al., Defendants. 11
12 INTRODUCTION 13 Plaintiff Samuel Durwood Brians, a California prisoner at Pelican Bay State Prison 14 (“PBSP”) proceeding without an attorney, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 15 The complaint names four defendants: Tamra Fallman-Berling and Jamie Walker, two employees 16 of the Del Norte County Superior Court; Angelina Countess, a process server; and Andrea 17 McCovey, a PBSP employee. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in 18 forma pauperis is granted in a separate order. 19 For the reasons discussed below, the complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim capable of judicial determination. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint. 20 BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiff Brians alleges he received “Confidential Legal Mail” that had been opened before 22 he received it. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) The mail had been “filed at the Superior Court of California, 23 County of Del Norte by [Defendant] Tamara Fallman-Berling on behalf of [Mr. Brians’s] wife 24 (Hazel Cajusay).” (Id.) Defendant Countess, a process server, delivered the mail to PBSP, where 25
26 1 The complaint lists three additional plaintiffs, whom Plaintiff describes as “my wife, her sister, and her niece.” (ECF No. 1 at 2-3.) These additional plaintiffs did not sign the complaint, and 27 they are addressed below. Unless otherwise specified, the term “Plaintiff” in this order refers only 1 Defendant McCovey, a PBSP employee, “signed for” it. (Id. at 3.) He alleges the mail “contained 2 personal financial information,” which “was left OPEN and EXPOSED to any criminal” during 3 the nine days between its arrival at PBSP and Brians receiving it. (Id.) He states he is in “fear for 4 my wife, her sister, and her niece because of the FACT that the financial information contained in 5 the Confidential Legal Mail being left OPEN & EXPOSED.” (Id.) He alleges that in addition to 6 his mail being opened, he “did not sign for it.” (Id.) He also alleges he “was DENIED my full 30 7 days to ‘CONTEST’ the petition due to the mishandling of these LEGAL DOCUMENTS.” (Id.) 8 He seeks to have “the court hold themselves and every defendant involved accountable,” and he seeks money damages. (Id.) 9 STANDARD OF REVIEW 10 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 11 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 12 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of 13 the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 14 may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. 15 § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 16 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 17 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 18 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the 19 statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds upon 20 which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although to 21 state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to 22 provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a 23 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must 24 be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 25 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a 26 claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. To state a claim that is plausible on its 27 1 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 2 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 3 right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged 4 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 5 42, 48 (1988). 6 LEGAL CLAIMS 7 I. Opening of Mail 8 Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the opening of his mail, even when liberally construed in 9 his favor, do not state a plausible claim for the violation of his constitutional rights. Prisoners do 10 enjoy a First Amendment right to send and receive mail. Witherow v. Paff, 52 F.3d 264, 265 (9th 11 Cir. 1995) (citing Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407 (1989)). Prison officials may inspect 12 mail for contraband without violating a prisoner's constitutional rights. Smith v. Boyd, 945 F.2d 13 1041, 1043 (8th Cir. 1991) (upholding inspection of incoming mail); Gaines v. Lane, 790 F.2d 14 1299, 1304 (7th Cir. 1986) (upholding inspection of outgoing and incoming mail). If the mail is 15 “legal mail,” prisoners as have “a protected First Amendment interest in having [it] opened only in 16 their presence.” Hayes v. Idaho Correctional Center, 849 F.3d 1204, 1211 (9th Cir. 2017). Mail 17 from a court to a prisoner, as contrasted to mail from a prisoner’s lawyer, is not “legal mail” 18 subject to this additional First Amendment protection. See id.; Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 19 1094 (9th Cir. 1996), amended, 135 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Martin v. Brewer, 830 20 F.2d 76, 78 (7th Cir. 1987) (explaining that correspondence from a court to a litigant is not legal 21 mail because court documents are public documents). Thus, prison officials may open and inspect 22 mail to a prisoner from courts outside the prisoner’s presence. Hayes, 849 F.3d at 1211; Keenan, 23 83 F.3d at 1094. Because Plaintiff alleges the mail he received that had been opened consisted of 24 court filings sent to him by a state court, under Keenan and Hayes, it did not constitute “legal 25 mail” that prison officials could not open without him being present. Thus, even liberally 26 construing the complaint, it does not support a reasonable inference Defendants violated his First 27 Amendment rights. 1 clear that the opened mail was not, as a matter of law, legal mail that had to be opened in his 2 presence under the First Amendment. Thus, leave to amend this claim is not granted. 3 B. Delay in Receiving Mail 4 Plaintiff’s allegations Defendants denied him a “full 30 days” to “contest” a state court 5 “petition” (ECF No. 1 at 3) also do not state a plausible claim for the violation of his constitutional 6 rights.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SAMUEL DURWOOD BRIANS, et al., Case No. 26-cv-01197-JSC
8 Plaintiffs, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 9 v. TO AMEND
10 TAMRA FALLMAN, et al., Defendants. 11
12 INTRODUCTION 13 Plaintiff Samuel Durwood Brians, a California prisoner at Pelican Bay State Prison 14 (“PBSP”) proceeding without an attorney, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 15 The complaint names four defendants: Tamra Fallman-Berling and Jamie Walker, two employees 16 of the Del Norte County Superior Court; Angelina Countess, a process server; and Andrea 17 McCovey, a PBSP employee. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in 18 forma pauperis is granted in a separate order. 19 For the reasons discussed below, the complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim capable of judicial determination. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint. 20 BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiff Brians alleges he received “Confidential Legal Mail” that had been opened before 22 he received it. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) The mail had been “filed at the Superior Court of California, 23 County of Del Norte by [Defendant] Tamara Fallman-Berling on behalf of [Mr. Brians’s] wife 24 (Hazel Cajusay).” (Id.) Defendant Countess, a process server, delivered the mail to PBSP, where 25
26 1 The complaint lists three additional plaintiffs, whom Plaintiff describes as “my wife, her sister, and her niece.” (ECF No. 1 at 2-3.) These additional plaintiffs did not sign the complaint, and 27 they are addressed below. Unless otherwise specified, the term “Plaintiff” in this order refers only 1 Defendant McCovey, a PBSP employee, “signed for” it. (Id. at 3.) He alleges the mail “contained 2 personal financial information,” which “was left OPEN and EXPOSED to any criminal” during 3 the nine days between its arrival at PBSP and Brians receiving it. (Id.) He states he is in “fear for 4 my wife, her sister, and her niece because of the FACT that the financial information contained in 5 the Confidential Legal Mail being left OPEN & EXPOSED.” (Id.) He alleges that in addition to 6 his mail being opened, he “did not sign for it.” (Id.) He also alleges he “was DENIED my full 30 7 days to ‘CONTEST’ the petition due to the mishandling of these LEGAL DOCUMENTS.” (Id.) 8 He seeks to have “the court hold themselves and every defendant involved accountable,” and he seeks money damages. (Id.) 9 STANDARD OF REVIEW 10 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 11 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 12 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of 13 the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 14 may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. 15 § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 16 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 17 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 18 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the 19 statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds upon 20 which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although to 21 state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to 22 provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a 23 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must 24 be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 25 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a 26 claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. To state a claim that is plausible on its 27 1 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 2 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 3 right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged 4 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 5 42, 48 (1988). 6 LEGAL CLAIMS 7 I. Opening of Mail 8 Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the opening of his mail, even when liberally construed in 9 his favor, do not state a plausible claim for the violation of his constitutional rights. Prisoners do 10 enjoy a First Amendment right to send and receive mail. Witherow v. Paff, 52 F.3d 264, 265 (9th 11 Cir. 1995) (citing Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407 (1989)). Prison officials may inspect 12 mail for contraband without violating a prisoner's constitutional rights. Smith v. Boyd, 945 F.2d 13 1041, 1043 (8th Cir. 1991) (upholding inspection of incoming mail); Gaines v. Lane, 790 F.2d 14 1299, 1304 (7th Cir. 1986) (upholding inspection of outgoing and incoming mail). If the mail is 15 “legal mail,” prisoners as have “a protected First Amendment interest in having [it] opened only in 16 their presence.” Hayes v. Idaho Correctional Center, 849 F.3d 1204, 1211 (9th Cir. 2017). Mail 17 from a court to a prisoner, as contrasted to mail from a prisoner’s lawyer, is not “legal mail” 18 subject to this additional First Amendment protection. See id.; Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 19 1094 (9th Cir. 1996), amended, 135 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Martin v. Brewer, 830 20 F.2d 76, 78 (7th Cir. 1987) (explaining that correspondence from a court to a litigant is not legal 21 mail because court documents are public documents). Thus, prison officials may open and inspect 22 mail to a prisoner from courts outside the prisoner’s presence. Hayes, 849 F.3d at 1211; Keenan, 23 83 F.3d at 1094. Because Plaintiff alleges the mail he received that had been opened consisted of 24 court filings sent to him by a state court, under Keenan and Hayes, it did not constitute “legal 25 mail” that prison officials could not open without him being present. Thus, even liberally 26 construing the complaint, it does not support a reasonable inference Defendants violated his First 27 Amendment rights. 1 clear that the opened mail was not, as a matter of law, legal mail that had to be opened in his 2 presence under the First Amendment. Thus, leave to amend this claim is not granted. 3 B. Delay in Receiving Mail 4 Plaintiff’s allegations Defendants denied him a “full 30 days” to “contest” a state court 5 “petition” (ECF No. 1 at 3) also do not state a plausible claim for the violation of his constitutional 6 rights. Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 7 350 (1996). Such a violation occurs when action by prison officials hinder a prisoner’s ability to 8 litigate a non-frivolous claim concerning his conviction or conditions of confinement. See id. at 9 349-51, 354-55; Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1102 (9th Cir. 2011), overruled on other 10 grounds as recognized in Richey v. Dahne, 807 F.3d 1202, 1209 n.6 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Impairment 11 of any other litigating capacity [than contesting a conviction or confinement] is simply one of the 12 incidental (and perfectly constitutional) consequences of conviction and incarceration.”). 13 Moreover, to state a plausible claim, the prisoner must describe the underlying non-frivolous claim 14 well enough to show that “the ‘arguable’ nature of the underlying claim is more than hope.” 15 Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 416 (2002) (footnote omitted). Plaintiff’s allegations can 16 be liberally construed to support a reasonable inference that Defendants caused delays in the 17 delivery of his mail from the state court that caused him to miss a deadline in a state court 18 proceeding. Plaintiff has not alleged the nature of this proceeding or the petition he wished to 19 contest, so no reasonable inference can be drawn that it concerned his conviction or confinement. 20 Additionally, Plaintiff has not alleged or described any claim he intended to raise in the state court 21 proceeding, so no reasonable inference can be drawn it was not a frivolous claim. Consequently, 22 the complaint does not state a plausible claim Defendants violated his constitutional right of 23 access to the courts by interfering with his ability to pursue a non-frivolous claim concerning his 24 conviction or confinement. 25 Plaintiff will be given leave to file an amended complaint that cures the deficiencies in this 26 claim. 27 C. Multiple Plaintiffs 1 whom are represented by a lawyer. These plaintiffs have not signed the complaint as required by 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) (“Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be 3 signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's name—or by a party personally if the 4 party is unrepresented.”). Nor may Brians represent them because he is not a lawyer. Johns v. 5 Cnty. of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) (“While a non-attorney may appear [] on 6 his own behalf, he has no authority to appear as an attorney for others.”) (internal quotation marks 7 and citation omitted). Accordingly, if the three additional plaintiffs wish to be part of this case, 8 they must sign the amended complaint, ordered below. Under Rule 20(a)(1), moreover, they may 9 only join in the case if their claims arise out of the same or transaction or occurrence or series of 10 transactions or occurrences as Plaintiff Brians’s claims, and there is a common question of law or 11 fact as to all claims.2 Alternatively, the three additional plaintiffs file their claims in a new 12 complaint in a new case. 13 CONCLUSION 14 For the foregoing reasons, 15 1. Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants opened his mail is DISMISSED without leave to 16 amend. Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants prevented him from contesting a state court proceeding 17 is DISMISSED with leave to amend. 18 2. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint on or before April 30, 2026. The 19 amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (No. C 26- 20 1197 JSC (PR)) and the words “COURT-ORDERED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the 21 first page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, see Ferdik 22 v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992), Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the 23 original by reference; he must include in his amended complaint all the claims he wishes to 24 2 Rule 20(a)(1) provides: 25 (1) Plaintiffs. Persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if: (A) they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the 26 alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and 27 (B) any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will ] pursue. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within the designated time, or if the 2 || amendment is not sufficient, this case may be dismissed. 3 3. It is Plaintiffs responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court 4 || informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of 5 Change of Address.” He also must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to 6 || do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of 7 || Civil Procedure 41(b). Reasonable requests for an extension of a deadline will be allowed upon a 8 showing of good cause if the request is filed prior to the deadline. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: March 31, 2026 1] g JKCQVELINE SCOTT CORLE = 13 United States District Judge
15 16
(17
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28