Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Tyson Joiel Suggs v. James Walker

April 6, 2011

TYSON JOIEL SUGGS,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
JAMES WALKER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM WITH LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT RESPONSE DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS (DOC. 1)

Screening Order

I. Background

Plaintiff Tyson Joiel Suggs ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action by filing his complaint on July 30, 2010. Doc. 1.

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). "Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim that is plausible on its face.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

II. Summary of Complaint

Plaintiff was previously incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison in ("CSP-Cor"), in Corcoran, California, where the events giving rise to this action occurred. Plaintiff names as Defendants the warden of California State Prison at Sacramento ("CSP-Sac"), John Walker, and R. Rosenthal, law librarian for CSP-Cor.

Plaintiff alleges the following. On June 4, 2009 and June 11, 2009, the law library was closed. Plaintiff had documents for superior court and the Supreme Court that needed copying. On June 13, June 16, and June 17 of 2009, Plaintiff was neglected law library status. On June 25, 2009, Plaintiff attempted to copy his transcripts for his writ of habeas corpus. On August 13, 2009, Defendant Rosenthal would not copy documents at the law library.

Plaintiff requests as relief monetary damages. Plaintiff claims a violation of the First Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.*fn1

Plaintiff also alleges a violation of Penal Code section 548.

III. Analysis

A. Access To The Courts

Plaintiff's allegations regarding copying of his transcripts appear to concern his access to the courts. Inmates have a fundamental right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 346 (1996).*fn2 The right is limited to direct criminal appeals, habeas petitions, and civil rights actions. Id. at 354. Claims for denial of access to the courts may arise from the frustration or hindrance of "a litigating opportunity yet to be gained" (forward-looking access claim) or from the loss of a meritorious suit that cannot now be tried (backward-looking claim). Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 412-15 (2002). For backward-looking claims such as that at issue here, plaintiff must show: 1) the loss of a 'non-frivolous' or ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.