Unpublished Disposition, 930 F.2d 28 (9th Cir. 1991)

No. 90-15072.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Before BEEZER and NOONAN, Circuit Judges, JONES,^**  District Judge

MEMORANDUM^*** 

Plaintiff, a former California state prisoner, armed with legal papers and pen, but without counsel, fired off a series of scattergun complaints against his jailers, claiming violations of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court, unimpressed by his thirteen attempts to state a valid claim, dismissed his "causes of action" as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). We agree with the district court and affirm.

Most of plaintiff's complaints deserve no discussion at all. Some do, but only to demonstrate their frivolity.

We review O'Loughlin's claims as a pretrial detainee under the due process clause rather than the eighth amendment. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979). At a minimum, Bell stands for the proposition that if a particular condition or restriction is reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective, the condition or restriction does not amount to punishment and therefore does not violate due process.

Plaintiff complains that a jailer in Tahoe City, California refused to allow plaintiff to call his attorney for more than four hours from the time he was arrested. This neither constitutes denial of counsel nor a violation of due process.

Plaintiff next complains that the jailers took his jewelry and that the jailers were dishonest and corrupt. Again, plaintiff has not stated a constitutional violation.

Plaintiff complains about general conditions of the jail. One condition plaintiff discusses concerns the alleged presence of deadly carbon monoxide gas in the jail, but plaintiff fails to make a specific allegation that anything happened to anyone. Particularly, plaintiff fails to make an allegation of any injury to himself.

Finally, plaintiff complains he was coerced into waiving extradition on the promise that his jewelry would be returned to him. This, along with the rest of plaintiff's complaints, has absolutely no legal substance.

In sum, this is just one more rambling, grumbling lawsuit by a pro se prisoner that justly deserves the sobriquet "frivolous."

AFFIRMED.