United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION RE: DKT. NO.
37
MARIA-ELENA JAMES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff,
a California state prisoner currently incarcerated at
Calipatria State Prison and proceeding pro se, filed
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
complaining of civil rights violations at Pelican Bay State
Prison ("PBSP"), where he was previously housed.
Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion
requesting that the Court reconsider its dismissal with
prejudice of the fourth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh causes of
action of his second amended complaint.[1] For the reasons
set forth below, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration
is DENIED.
PROCEDURAL
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff
initiated this action on December 22, 2014. Docket No. 1. The
Court dismissed Plaintiff's initial complaint with leave
to amend. Docket No. 3. On August 14, 2015, Plaintiff filed
an amended complaint. Docket No. 11. The Court screened this
complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and
dismissed certain defendants and claims with prejudice,
dismissed certain claims and defendants with leave to amend,
found certain claims cognizable, and ordered service on
certain named defendants. See generally Docket No.
15. On March 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint. Docket No. 29. The Court screened this complaint
as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), and inter
alia dismissed with prejudice the following claims: the
First Amendment claim against Sgt. Hall (fourth cause of
action); and the First Amendment claim against Bramucci,
Bond, Ducart, Hodges, Allen, and Zamora (ninth, tenth, and
eleventh causes of action). Docket No. 36 at 11. The
dismissal with prejudice of these claims resulted in the
termination of the following defendants from this action:
Hall, Bramucci, Bond, Ducart, Hodges, Allen, and Zamora.
Id.
DISCUSSION
"Reconsideration
is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with
newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the
initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an
intervening change in controlling law." School Dist.
No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.
1993). Liberally construed, Plaintiff's motion argues
that the Court committed clear error in dismissing with
prejudice the fourth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh causes of
action, and in thereby dismissing with prejudice Sgt. Hall,
Bramucci, Bond, Ducart, Hodges, Allen, and Zamora.
I.
Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Causes of Action
Plaintiff
argues that because the Court previously found that the
ninth, tenth, and eleventh causes of action stated a
cognizable First Amendment claim, the "law of the
case" doctrine requires that the Court allow Plaintiff
to proceed on these claims. In Plaintiff's ninth, tenth,
and eleventh causes of action, Plaintiff alleges, in both his
first amended complaint and his second amended complaint,
that Bramucci, Bond, Ducart, Hodges, Allen, and Zamora denied
him his First Amendment right to petition the government by
failing to provide him a meaningful review of his
administrative appeals. Docket No. 11 at 51-61 and Docket No.
29 at 50-55. In screening the first amended complaint, the
Court found that these allegations stated a cognizable First
Amendment violation. Docket No. 15 at 8. In screening the
second amended complaint, the Court instead found that these
allegations failed to state a First Amendment violation and
dismissed these claims with prejudice. Docket No. 36 at 8.
The
Court erred in its order screening the first amended
complaint when it found that the allegations against
Bramucci, Bond, Ducart, Hodges, Allen, and Zamora stated a
cognizable First Amendment claim. Prisoners do not possess a
constitutional right to a prison grievance
system.[2]See Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639,
640 (9th Cir. 1988). Consequently, a prison official's
failure to process grievances is not actionable under Section
1983. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th
Cir. 2003) (holding that the prisoner's claimed loss of
liberty interest in processing of administrative appeals does
not violate due process because prisoners lack separate
constitutional entitlement to specific prison grievance
system). Further, while a prisoner retains a First Amendment
right to petition the government for redress of grievances as
to the constitutional claim underlying an administrative
grievance, he possesses no constitutional right to a response
to his grievance from prison officials. See Flick v.
Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991) (holding that
the prisoner's First Amendment right of access to courts
is not compromised by prison's refusal to entertain
grievance); see also Riley v. Roach, 572 F.App'x
504, 507 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that district court
properly dismissed prisoner-plaintiff's claim that prison
appeals coordinators failed to properly process his
grievances because inmates do not possess a constitutional
right to a prison grievance procedure).
The
Court did not commit error in dismissing with prejudice
Plaintiff's claims that Bramucci, Bond, Ducart, Hodges,
Allen, and Zamora denied him his First Amendment right to
petition the government by failing to provide him a
meaningful review of his administrative appeals (ninth,
tenth, and eleventh causes of action).[3]
II.
Fourth Cause of Action
Plaintiff
argues that there are reasonable inferences that support his
claim against Sgt. Hall (the fourth cause of action), and
that the Court therefore erred in dismissing with prejudice
both the fourth cause of action and Sgt. Hall. In initially
dismissing the fourth cause of action and dismissing Sgt.
Hall from the first amended complaint, the Court found that
Plaintiffs allegations regarding Sgt. Hall's liability
were speculative and conclusory, failed to established a
custom or policy, and failed to establish how Sgt. Hall had
failed to supervise his subordinates. Docket No. 15 at 6-7.
Plaintiffs second amended complaint failed to correct these
deficiencies for the reasons set forth in the Court's
order screening the second amended complaint. Docket No. 35
at 5-6. Plaintiffs allegations in his motion for
reconsideration are also speculative and conclusory. The
Court did not commit error in dismissing either Plaintiffs
fourth cause of action or Sgt. Hall.
III.
Request to Certify
Plaintiffs
request that the Court "certify" the dismissal of
the fourth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh causes of action so
that he may appeal the dismissal of these causes of action is
DENIED. Granting Plaintiff s request would run counter to the
interests of sound judicial administration and counter to the
historic federal policy ...