United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF
ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF
[ECF NO. 37]
Calvin Holt is appearing pro se in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred
to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
before the Court is Plaintiff's third amended complaint,
filed December 27, 2019.
Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the
prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous
or malicious, ” that “fail to state a claim on
which relief may be granted, ” or that “seek
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
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)).
Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant
personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff's
rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th
proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to
have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any
doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman,
680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). To
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 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d
962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and
“facts that are ‘merely consistent with' a
defendant's liability” falls short of satisfying
the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678;
Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
Court accepts Plaintiff's allegations in the third
amended complaint as true only for the purpose of
the sua sponte screening requirement under 28 U.S.C.
about October 10, 2016, Plaintiff deposited regular mail in
the institutional mail system that was placed in officer J.
Vanaman's care who between October 10, 2016 and October
11, 2016, disregarded Plaintiff's mail into the trash.
The mail was later discovered by inmate Robert Moore who
reported the incident to his supervisor. Plaintiff filed an
inmate appeal which was granted.
2017 or early 2018, Plaintiff began receiving a subscription
to Bayview Newspaper, and his subscription was renewed on
January 21, 2019, for monthly distribution. To date,
Plaintiff has only received approximately eight of the
newspapers for which John/Jane Does are liable.
April 9, 2018, Defendant Gardner summoned Plaintiff to the
package/parcel window to pick up a regular mail parcel.
However, after Plaintiff was provided the package, he
discovered it was legal documents/mail which was further
“blatantly bolstered by the envelope's above said
labeling” which “any alert officer would have
noticed.” Legal mail must be distributed pursuant to
the strictly fashioned CDCR rules/guidelines (i.e.
constitutional, privacy, recording, etc. safeguards) that
governs the distribution by a designated officer and
procedure. However, Defendant Gardner was not designed or
serving in the capacity to distribute legal mail on June 8,
2018. When Plaintiff questioned Gardner about the legal mail
procedure, Gardner became irate and argumentative, took back
the legal documents, closed the window, and it sounded as
though he was reprimanding the mailroom for
malfeasance/negligence for improperly forwarding the legal
mail to his room. Gardner then reopened the window and
informed Plaintiff that he would be maintaining and returning
the legal documents to the mailroom for proper distribution
later that evening. A “Civil Complaint/Lawsuit that on
the occurrence date was still within the time constraints for
service upon his (i.e. C.O. W. Gardner's) colleague C.O.
J. Vanaman ironically for the above stated mail violation,
stated in the 1st claim of this passage.” Plaintiff did
not receive the legal mail/documents until the time
constraints for timely/lawful service had elapsed (i.e. which
resulted in the filing of a motion to quash service of
summons on April 30, 2018.
about April 17, 2018, after Plaintiff did not receive his
legal documentation, he filed an inmate appeal against
Defendant Gardner, and Gardner was found guilty of violation
of the mail policy.
August 12, 2018, Plaintiff deposited a green CDCR 602 appeal
form in building D3's appeal mailbox against officer Pano
for misconduct in violation of the Armstrong Remedial Plan
provisions because he was deprived of medical shower. On
September 20, 2018, a response in appeal log no.
SATF-D-18-04704 was issued; however, Plaintiff the actual
green appeal was not attached to the response, but a blank
CDCR 1824 reasonable accommodation request was attached. The
mail violations resulted in stonewalling/impeding the
Plaintiff's right to redress a grievance. The green CDCR
602 form was never located and no one was held accountable.
December 31, 2018, Plaintiff ordered a first quarter
package/parcel through his prepaid account which was received
by the prison on January 14, 2019. However, Gardner did not
distribute the package/parcel until February 18, 2019, in
excess of the 15-day time constraints authorized per the
rules. When Plaintiff filed a CDCR 22 form regarding the
package, and on February 25, 2019, he received a response
which indicated that the package was received in early
February 2019 and delivered to Plaintiff's housing until
on February 6, 2019.
March 10, 2019, Plaintiff properly mailed health care appeal
form no. HC 18002239 via the institutional legal mail system.
However, on March 22, 2019, the appeal was returned to
Plaintiff contrary to protocol via regular mail from building
D3 housing correctional officer who was not designed for
distribution of confidential/legal mail. Plaintiff
immediately prepared a CDCR 22 form informing the supervising