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.

Cantu v. Velazqaz

United States District Court, N.D. California

November 7, 2017

JESSE CANTU, Plaintiff,
v.
M. A. VELAZQAZ, Defendant. v.

          ORDER OF SERVICE RE: DKT. NO. 14

          JAMES DONATO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend and he has filed a second amended complaint.

         DISCUSSION

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 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. Id. at 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.” Although 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. The United States Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).

         To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

         LEGAL CLAIMS

         Plaintiff alleges that his legal documents were confiscated and then discarded. Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). To establish a claim for any violation of the right of access to the courts, the prisoner must prove that there was an inadequacy in the prison's legal access program that caused him an actual injury. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 350-55. To prove an actual injury, the prisoner must show that the inadequacy in the prison's program hindered his efforts to pursue a non-frivolous claim concerning his conviction or conditions of confinement. See id. at 354-55. Destruction or confiscation of legal work may violate an inmate's right to access to the courts, see Elliott v. Terry, 873 F.2d 1201, 1202 (9th Cir. 1989), if plaintiff can establish actual injury, see Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1171 (9th Cir. 1989).

         During a search of plaintiff's cell, correctional officers confiscated a pillow case that was full of papers and had a rope tied to the top. Correctional officers believed it was a manufactured weight bag for exercising which was not permitted. Plaintiff states that the bag contained his legal documents. The pillow case and legal documents were not returned and appear to have been discarded. Plaintiff states that he was hindered in his ability to challenge his conviction. Defendant Velazquez conducted the search and defendants Grant and Buchannan decided to hold onto the papers after they were informed that they were legal papers. These allegations are sufficient to proceed against these defendants.

         Plaintiff alleges that defendants Lants and Wagner did not return the legal papers. However, these defendants did not return the papers because defendant Buchannan instructed that the papers should not be returned. Because Lants and Wagner were not involved in the confiscation or decision to retain the legal papers they are dismissed from this action with prejudice. Plaintiff alleges that defendants Schrag and Ducart denied plaintiff's inmate appeal regarding the legal papers. However, there is no constitutional right to a prison administrative appeal or grievance system. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). These defendants are dismissed with prejudice because plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim regarding the denied inmate appeals.

         Plaintiff has also requested the appointment of counsel. The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant only in “exceptional circumstances, ” the determination of which requires an evaluation of both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits, and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff appears able to present his claims adequately, and the issues are not complex, therefore the request is denied.

         CONCLUSION

         1. The motion to appoint counsel (Docket ...


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.