United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a California state prisoner, filed this pro se civil rights
case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials at the
California Training Facility. He is granted leave to proceed
in forma pauperis in a separate order. For the reasons
discussed below, the complaint is dismissed for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Standard of Review
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
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, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (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, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations
omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to
state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face."
Id. at 1974.
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983, a plaintiff must allege
two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and
(2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person
acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
claims alleges that defendant Bloom falsified disciplinary
charges against him in retaliation for plaintiff having filed
an administrative grievance against Bloom. A prisoner's
First Amendment rights are violated if he is retaliated
against for using administrative grievance procedures.
Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir.
2005). The attachments to the complaint, however, establish
that Bloom filed disciplinary charges before
plaintiff filed the administrative grievance. Specifically,
Bloom filed the disciplinary charges on April 3, 2019,
whereas plaintiff filed the administrative grievance - which
complained about Bloom referring plaintiff to mental health
services - on April 11, 2109 (see Pet. Ex. A at 5;
Pet. Ex. C at 3). Bloom could not have retaliated against
plaintiff for an action that plaintiff had not yet taken.
Plaintiff's allegations, even when liberally construed,
indicate that Bloom did not retaliate against him for
exercising his First Amendment rights, and therefore do not
state a cognizable retaliation claim.
claims that the other defendants acted “in
cahoots” with Bloom and covered up his retaliatory
actions. These other defendants reviewed and granted in part
and denied in part plaintiffs administrative grievance
regarding Bloom's allegedly retaliatory disciplinary
charges. Plaintiffs retaliation claim against these
defendants is not cognizable because it is based upon the
claim that Bloom retaliated against plaintiff, which, for the
reasons discussed, is not cognizable. Plaintiff also does not
state a cognizable claim against these defendants for
improperly processing or denying his administrative
grievances. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860
(9th Cir. 2003) (there is no constitutional right to a prison
administrative appeal or grievance system), For the reasons
discussed, plaintiffs complaint must be dismissed for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Any
attempt at amendment would be futile because the allegations
in the complaint and the attachments thereto establish that
defendants did not retaliate against him for exercising his
First Amendment rights. Therefore, leave to amend is not
reasons set out above, this case is
Dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. The clerk shall enter judgment
and close the file.