Scott v. Rahimi
This text of Scott v. Rahimi (Scott v. Rahimi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 CHRISTOPHER DAVON SCOTT, 10 Case No. 25-cv-02791-RS (PR) Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER DISMISSING THE 12 COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO W RAHIMI, et al., AMEND 13 Defendants. 14
15 16 INTRODUCTION 17 Plaintiff alleges deputy sheriffs violated his right to self-representation by denying 18 him access to phone calls, books, and electronic tablets. His 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint 19 containing these allegations is now before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 20 1915A(a). 21 Plaintiff has not stated any claim for relief. Sheriff’s deputies cannot violate 22 plaintiff’s right to self-representation, and his allegations do not state an access-to-court 23 claim under the First Amendment. Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED with leave 24 to file an amended complaint on or before August 1, 2025. The amended complaint must 25 comply with the instructions in this order. Failure to file a proper amended complaint by 26 August 1, 2025 will result in dismissal of this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27 41(b) without further notice to plaintiff. 1 DISCUSSION 2 A. Standard of Review 3 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 4 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 5 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, a court must identify any 6 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 7 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 8 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 9 See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 10 A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 11 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 12 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial 13 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 14 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting 15 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal 16 conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably 17 be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754-55 18 (9th Cir. 1994). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two 19 essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States 20 was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 21 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 22 B. Legal Claims 23 Plaintiff alleges that on several occasions in February and March 2025 sheriff’s 24 deputies at the San Mateo County Jail violated his “Faretta rights by denying access to my 25 pro per needs, such as phone calls, books and/or electronic tablets.” (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 26 3.) These allegations fail to state a claim for relief. Under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 27 806 (1975), a criminal defendant has the right to represent himself at trial. Faretta is 1 violated only when a trial judge refuses to allow a defendant to represent himself. Other 2 persons, such as sheriff’s deputies, cannot violate Faretta. 3 The events plaintiff describes might form the basis for a First Amendment claim. 4 To state a First Amendment access-to-court claim, a litigant must allege facts showing that 5 the interference caused him an actual injury by hindering his efforts to pursue a legal 6 claim. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996); Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1171 7 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Only if an actual injury is alleged does a plaintiff state a claim for which 8 relief can be granted.”). “If no actual injury has resulted, then the rights of the prisoner 9 have not been infringed, and the inquiry need go no further.” Vandelft v. Moses, 31 F.3d 10 794, 797 (9th Cir. 1994). An “actual injury consists of some specific instance in which an 11 inmate was actually denied access to the courts,” Sands, 886 F.2d at 1171 (citations 12 omitted), such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or present a claim, resulting in the 13 loss of the claim, Nev. Dep’t of Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2011) 14 (citing Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348). Plaintiff’s allegations do not show any actual injury. 15 Also, plaintiff does not state who violated his rights. He names Deputies Rahimi 16 and Nunez in the complaint, but those names do not appear in the actual allegations — nor 17 are any other persons named. To state a claim, plaintiff must name the person responsible 18 and describe his actions with specificity. Merely saying that unnamed deputies refused to 19 let him make phone calls to unspecified persons or have unspecified books is insufficient. 20 “A person deprives another ‘of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, 21 if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform 22 an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which [the plaintiff 23 complains].” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Johnson v. 24 Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). The inquiry into causation must be 25 individualized and focus on the duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant 26 whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused a constitutional deprivation. Id. 27 Plaintiff’s allegations do not meet these standards. 1 CONCLUSION 2 The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to file an amended complaint on or before 3 August 1, 2025. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number 4 used in this order (25-02791 RS (PR)) and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 5 must appear on the first page. The amended complaint must also appear on this Court’s 6 form, a copy of which will be sent to plaintiff. Because an amended complaint completely 7 replaces the previous complaints, plaintiff must include in his amended complaint all the 8 claims he wishes to present and all of the defendants he wishes to sue. See Ferdik v. 9 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate material from 10 any prior complaint or document by reference.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Scott v. Rahimi, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-rahimi-cand-2025.