United States District Court, E.D. California
SCREENING ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED
COMPLAINT [ECF No. 1] THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE
Barbara A. McAuliffe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Marcus Harrison is a state proceeding pro se in this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
complaint is currently before the Court for screening. (ECF
Screening Requirement and Standard
Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against
an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). Plaintiff's complaint, or any portion
thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or
malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§
complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . .
. .” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations
are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007)). While a plaintiff's allegations are taken as
true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted
inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
survive screening, Plaintiff's claims must be facially
plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow
the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret
Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer
possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not
sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short
of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572
F.3d at 969.
is currently housed at California Medical Facility in
Vacaville, California. Plaintiff alleges that the events at
issue took place at Corcoran State Prison
(“Corcoran”). Plaintiff names the following
defendants, each of whom are employed at Corcoran: (1)
Institutional Gang Investigator S. Niehus; (2) Institutional
Gang Investigator J. Pierce; (3) Investigative Services Unit
R. Broomfield; (4) Chief Deputy Warden M. V. Sexton; (5)
Associate Warden J. Vanderpoel; and (6) Officer Beam, 4B SHU
alleges as follows: On February 3, 2015, Plaintiff arrived at
Corcoran's Security Housing Unit (“SHU”) via
a transfer. Plaintiff handed Officer Beam a CDCR Form 22
dated February 3, 2015, and some legal documents for his
case, Harrison v. S. Burris, No. 13-2506-JST, which
had a February 6, 2015 deadline. Plaintiff requested access
to the SHU law library, which he was not accorded.
Consequently, Plaintiff's legal case was dismissed.
March 11, 2015, Plaintiff was issued his personal legal
property. Upon inspection, Plaintiff informed Officer G.
Robles that several legal documents and materials were
missing. Officer Robles informed Plaintiff that
Corcoran's Institutional Gang Investigation Unit
(“IGI Unit”) had searched Plaintiff's
property and confiscated materials.
March 15, 2015, Plaintiff sent a CDCR Form 22 dated March 15,
2015 to Corcoran's IGI Unit, addressed to Officer Niehus,
wherein Plaintiff inquired about the confiscation of his
political writings, pamphlets, reference notes, newspaper
clippings, etc. On March 17, 2015, Officer Niehus responded
by saying, “On February 18, 2015, Corcoran I.G.I. Unit
searched your property located in 4B SHU Property Room. Refer
to attached property receipt. On February 18, 2015, a copy of
the attached search receipt was forwarded to you via
institutional mail. All items confiscated will be documented
@ a future date.” (Compl. 11.)
result of the confiscation of Plaintiff's legal exhibits,
Plaintiff suffered the following harm: (1) Harrison v. S.
Burris, No. 13-2506-JST, was dismissed on March 31,
2015; and (2) Harrison v. D. Milligan, No. 14-15022,
was dismissed on May 19, 2015. As indicated by Officer
Niehus, all of Corcoran's IGI Unit staff members were
complicit in confiscating Plaintiff's exhibits. IGI Unit
Sergeant J. Pierce and Investigative Services Unit
(“ISU”) Captain R. Broomfield signed off on 602
appeal No. CSPC-8-05-02088, wherein they state:
In February 2015, your personal property, which was stored in
the Corcoran SHU property room, was searched by members of
the Corcoran Institutional Gang Investigations (I.G.I.) Unit.
During the search, contraband and suspected contraband was
confiscated and you were issued a property removal receipt.
(Compl. 13.) Chief Deputy Warden Sexton and Associate Warden
Vanderpoel were made aware of the officers confiscating
Plaintiff's property, which obstructed Plaintiff's
access to the courts.
second level review in 602 appeal log no. CSPC-5-15-02088,
Plaintiff received an itemized list of his confiscated items,
including the following: (1) newspaper clippings; (2)
postcard image of George Lester Jackson; (3) 23 page document
entitled, “Resisting the Subversive Extremes of
Political Persecution”; (4) 21 page political
dictionary; (5) 3 page political writing entitled,
“Thoughts on the Historical Materialism of the Prison
Movement”; (6) 8 page political writing about the
anatomy; (7) 24 pages dealing with the W.L. Nolen Mentorship
program; (8) 47 page manuscript entitled, “Manifesto of
Political Disorder”; (9) 41 photocopied images of
George Jackson Lives; (10) 10 pages of handwritten reference
notes; (11) 14 photocopied pages of newspaper clippings; (12)
3 page document discussing New Afrikan Revolutionary
Nationalism; (13) 2 page document of martial art movements;
(14) copies of a pamphlet entitled, “George Jackson
Lives.” These items were not contraband, as defendants
asserts a claim for violation of his right to access the
courts, and a violation of his rights to freedom of speech,
expression, and association under the First Amendment.
Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages,
declaratory relief, the return of his confiscated ...