United States District Court, N.D. California
EARNEST S. HARRIS, Plaintiff,
v.
CLARK DUCART, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; DENYING
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY RE: DKT. NO. 2
JON S.
TIGAR United States District Judge.
Plaintiff,
a California prisoner incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison
and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging constitutional violations at
Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”), where he was
previously incarcerated. Plaintiff is granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. His complaint
is now before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. §
1915A.
BACKGROUND
The
complaint alleges the following:
In late
2008 or early 2009, plaintiff had a petition for rehearing
pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. After the
petition was denied, he attempted to file a petition for writ
of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. Because he
sought pauper status, he requested an account statement from
the PBSP trust account office. Within days, the office
notified him that the account statement had been delivered to
the PBSP Security Housing Unit (“SHU”) law
library and would be provided to him when he was ready to
send his legal mail. It was standard PBSP protocol for
account statements and other legal mail to be mailed out by
the PBSP SHU law library as inmates were not permitted to
mail out their own legal mail. Upon being notified that his
account statement was ready in the library, plaintiff handed
the SHU law library officer his petition for writ of
certiorari. The officer sealed the petition in an envelope
and said he would mail it. The petition was never mailed, and
plaintiff missed his filing deadline. The United States
Supreme Court informed plaintiff that they had no record of
his case.
In a
separate case the plaintiff had pending before the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, plaintiff was denied a certificate
of appealability. Plaintiff again attempted to file a
petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme
Court. Once again, plaintiff waited for confirmation from the
PBSP trust account office that his account statement had been
delivered to the SHU law library. He then delivered his
petition for writ of certiorari. This time, plaintiff
followed up with several requests for interviews informing
the library that he had a filing deadlines. Initially,
plaintiff was informed that the law library had no writs or
any other legal documents in his name. Later, two days after
his filing deadline had passed, a library officer came to
plaintiff with the petition for writ of certiorari. The
petition was then mailed. However, the Supreme Court sent it
back, informing plaintiff that it would not be filed because
he had missed the filing deadline.
On
another occasion, plaintiff sent the law library legal
documents to be photocopied for his filing of a state court
petition for writ of habeas corpus. He again followed up with
a request for interview notifying the library of his filing
deadline. The law library held the documents for over two
weeks, causing plaintiff to miss his filing deadline and
forego the petition.
Finally,
plaintiff asserts that on three separate occasions the PBSP
SHU mailroom opened his confidential legal mail and then held
it for thirty days before delivering it to plaintiff. The
mail was sent from this court. Plaintiff states that the
mailroom supervisor for each of these incidents was defendant
P. Carrier.
DISCUSSION
I.
Standard of Review
A
federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any
case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental
entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify
any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims which are
frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who
is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (1),
(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed.
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d
696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not
necessary; the statement need only ‘give the defendant
fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds upon
which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). Although in order
to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed
factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to
provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment]
to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions,
and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough
to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must
proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570.
To
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege two elements: (1) that a right secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States was violated; and
(2) that the violation was committed by a person acting ...