United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE/INABILITY TO STATE A CLAIM (Doc. 12)
JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.
A. Procedural History
Plaintiff, Harald Mark Galzinksi, 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 filed the Complaint in this action on July 11, 2014. (Doc. 1.) It was screened and dismissed with leave to amend. (Doc. 11.) On September 4, 2014, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint, which is before the Court for screening. (Doc. 12.)
B. 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, 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); 28 U.S.C.1 § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).
B. Summary of the First Amended Complaint
Plaintiff complains of acts that occurred at Sierra Conservation Center ("SCC") where he is currently housed. Plaintiff names CDCR Secretary Jeffery Beard, SCC Warden Heidi M. Lackner, and Appeals Coordinator Michael Baldwin as Defendants in the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff seeks monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief.
Plaintiff alleges that he filed an inmate appeal against Sgt Lacey for harassing him for assisting another inmate with proofs of service/service of process. Baldwin rejected Plaintiff's appeal. When Plaintiff sent a letter to Baldwin explaining Baldwin's error, Baldwin screened and rejected his inmate appeal a second time. Plaintiff sent a second letter and Baldwin screened and then cancelled the inmate appeal. Plaintiff submitted an appeal challenging Baldwin's cancellation decision and was interviewed by Baldwin. Plaintiff's appeal was denied by Dept. Warden Martinez who found it had been "appropriately cancelled." Plaintiff's appeal was ultimately denied at the third and final level by Pool and Lozano, on behalf of Beard, finding that Plaintiff "failed to present any evidence that the actions of the staff were inappropriate." Plaintiff delineates two causes of action based on these allegations: (1) violation of his "First Amendment - Right to File Prison Grievances; and (2) "State Law - Declaratory Relief."
As discussed in greater detail below, Plaintiff was previously given the applicable standards which indicated that he does not have any protectable right in the inmate appeals/grievance process, yet he persists in pursuing this line of allegations and continues to fail to state a cognizable claim. It thus appears that Plaintiff is unable to state a cognizable claim and so as not to encourage fabrication, this action is appropriately dismissed with prejudice.
A. Plaintiff's ...