The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF NO. 1) CLERK TO CLOSE THE FILE IN THIS CASE
On May 6, 2011, Plaintiff Isidro Roman, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. (ECF No. 1.) On May 17, 2011, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff's Complaint is now before the Court for screening.
II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT
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, malicious," or 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).
Section 1983 "provides a cause of action for the 'deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws' of the United States." Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393--94 (1989).
III. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
Plaintiff is incarcerated at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Corcoran Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison, ("CSATF/SP"). (Compl. p. 1, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff complains that Defendants violated his right to access to the courts, by denying him access to the prison law library and preventing him from researching, preparing and timely filing objections to dismissal of certain claims in his separate civil rights litigation pending in the U.S. District Court in San Diego, Roman v. Adams et al.,*fn1 ("Adams"). (Compl. at 10-13.)
Plaintiff names the following Defendants: (1) Kathleen Allison, Warden at CSATF/SP, (2) P. Denny, Custody Captain at CSATF/SP, and (3) S. Killen, Law Librarian of Facility D at CSATF/SP. (Id. at 2-3.)
Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, and unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. (Id. at 14.)
Plaintiff's claims in this case relate to proceedings in Adams. On June 24, 2010, the Magistrate Judge in Adams issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint; objections to the R&R were due by July 16, 2010.*fn2 (Id. at 11.)
On July 1, 2010, Defendants Denny and Allison "authored and/or approved ... a modified program/lock-down wherein law library services were restricted for all inmates ... [and] physical access to the law library was denied ... and 'paging' services were to be provided only to those inmates who had been granted Priority Library User (PLU) status due to verified court deadlines within thirty (30) days." (Id.)
On July 6, 2010, in anticipation of objecting to the Adams' R&R, Plaintiff requested PLU status and copies of certain court opinions and rules by submitting the appropriate forms to the law library; Defendant Killen granted PLU but did not then process ...