The opinion of the court was delivered by: Susan P. Graber United States Circuit Judge
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
On September 11, 2008, Plaintiff Lorenzo Segura, a state prisoner incarcerated at California's High Desert Prison, proceeding without counsel, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in an original complaint. Clerk's Record, Docket No. 1 ("Doc." 1.). Plaintiff was confined at the time of the events giving rise to the complaint. On May 13, 2009, this court determined that the original complaint stated cognizable claims for relief "stemming from allegations that Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff access to legal materials and destroyed Plaintiff's personal property, including legal materials, in retaliation for his using administrative grievance procedures, in violation of his First Amendment right to free speech and the Fourteenth Amendment's prohibition against deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." (Doc. 16.) The original complaint named Defendants Warden T. Felker, Correctional Officer ("C/O") McGuire, C/O Sanchez, C/O Green, C/O Fannon, Sgt. Ingwerson, Sgt. Medonca, and Sgt. Carrera. (Doc. 1.)
On September 24, 2009, all Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's original complaint. (Doc. 22.) On November 4, 2009, Plaintiff filed an opposition. (Doc. 25.) On February 1, 2010, this court filed an order dismissing Plaintiff's original complaint, with leave to amend in certain respects. (Doc. 26.) Specifically, this court granted leave to amend with respect to specified Defendants, with respect to Plaintiff's "access to the courts" claim, and with respect to Plaintiff's "deprivation of personal property" claim. Id.
On April 1, 2010, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint ("complaint"). (Doc. 28.) On April 16, 2010, Defendants filed a "Request for Screening Under 28 U.S.C. [§] 1915A." (Doc. 29.) For the reasons explained below, the court GRANTS Defendants' request for screening.
B. Summary of Alleged Facts
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have denied him access to legal materials. On August 30, 2006, Plaintiff asked Defendant Medonca for access to his legal materials. Defendant Medonca told Plaintiff to ask Defendants McGuire and Sanchez. On September 7, 2006, Plaintiff asked Defendant McGuire for his legal materials. Defendant McGuire promised to return later with his materials, but did not return. On October 11, 2006, Plaintiff asked C/O Micone for access to his legal materials. C/O Micone told Plaintiff to ask Defendants McGuire and Sanchez. On October 20, 2006, Defendants Sanchez and C/O Micone visited Plaintiff's cell. Defendant Sanchez told Plaintiff that he would not bring Plaintiff his legal materials. On November 22, 2006, Plaintiff asked Defendant McGuire. Defendant McGuire became angry and told Plaintiff to ask Defendant Medonca. On January 16, 2006, Plaintiff again asked Defendant McGuire, who responded that Plaintiff would not be getting anything so stop asking. Defendant McGuire called Plaintiff a "cry baby." Around January 27, 2007, Plaintiff asked Defendant Carrera. Defendant Carrera refused to look for Plaintiff's property.
On September 20, 2007, Defendant Ingwerson interviewed Plaintiff and determined that none of the property was in Plaintiff's cell. On October 14, 2007, Defendant Ingwerson stated that the property was lost and that the institution would pay for the legal materials to be obtained from the court. On October 28, 2007, Defendants Green and Fannon searched Plaintiff's cell and submitted an allegedly false report that the "missing" materials were found in Plaintiff's cell.
Plaintiff alleges that his personal property has not been returned to him. At times, Plaintiff's complaint alleges that Defendants destroyed his personal property.
The court notes that an insignificant portion of page 8 of the complaint is obscured, likely due to copy-machine error. The error does not alter the analysis below.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) states that the court shall dismiss a complaint if it "fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." "In reviewing a dismissal for failure to state a claim, the court accepts all factual allegations in the complaint as true and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff." Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007). "Pro se complaints are to be construed liberally and may be dismissed for failure to state a claim only where it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). "Dismissal of a pro se complaint ...