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.

Hammond v. Glenn County Jail

United States District Court, E.D. California

May 1, 2018

ROBERT VIRGIL HAMMOND, Plaintiff,
v.
GLENN COUNTY JAIL, Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING IFP AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A

          EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff, a county inmate proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, [1] has filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

         I. Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

         Plaintiff's application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) and (2).

         I. Screening Requirement and Standards

         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). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, ” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b).

         A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)).While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).

         To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked assertions, ” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

         Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).

         II. Screening Order

         Plaintiff claims that Glenn County Jail officials only provide envelopes for mail to the attorney handling the inmate's case and that if the envelope is addressed to any other law firm, they will refuse to mail it. ECF No. 7 at 4.[2] He adds that he can only send legal mail to his public defender, “who refuse[s] to do anything.” Id. at 5. On one instance, Officer Ladermilk, purportedly acting upon the orders of Corporal Sullivan, returned five envelopes to plaintiff, told plaintiff to remove the letters and to return the envelopes to the Jail. Plaintiff claims he filed an administrative grievance and that Officer Callas threatened him so that he would abandon the grievance. Plaintiff claims he is indigent and should be provided with the materials necessary to correspond with lawyers and courts. Id. at 3.

         The complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend because it does not identify any claims for relief and the allegations are too vague and conclusory to otherwise demonstrate that any particular defendant violated plaintiff's federal rights by limiting his outgoing mail, interfering with his access to the courts, or retaliating against him.

         To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege: (1) the violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the facts establish the defendant's personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal connection between the defendant's wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation.See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978).

         Prisoners enjoy a First Amendment right to send and receive mail and to petition the government for redress of grievances. Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407 (1989); O'Keefe v. Van Boening, 82 F.3d 322, 325 (9th Cir. 1996); Witherow v. Paff, 52 F.3d 264, 265 (9th Cir. 1995). However, a prison may adopt regulations that impinge on an inmate's constitutional rights if the regulations are reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987); Witherow, 52 F.3d at 265. Regulations impacting outgoing mail must more closely fit their purposes than those impacting incoming mail, but in neither instance must the regulation be the least restrictive means of achieving its purpose. Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 412; Witherow, 52 F.3d at 265. “Legal mail” in the context of the First ...


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.