-EFB (PC) Jackson v. Williams, et al, No. 2:2009cv01261 - Document 33 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 6/17/2011 ORDERING that Dft's 9/10/2010 request for judicial notice is GRANTED. The Clerk to randomly assign a US District Judge to this case. IT IS HEREBY RE COMMENDED that Pltf's access to the courts claim be dismissed. Dft's 18 Motion for Summary Judgment be denied as moot and this action proceed solely on Pltf's retaliation claim. Referred to Judge William B. Shubb. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Zignago, K.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-EFB (PC) Jackson v. Williams, et al Doc. 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RAYMOND D. JACKSON, SR., 11 12 13 14 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-1261 EFB P vs. B.C. WILLIAMS, et al., ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. / 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 17 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s May 7, 2009 complaint, wherein plaintiff 18 alleges that defendant Williams violated his First Amendment rights. Plaintiff claims that (1) 19 defendant caused plaintiff’s state court lawsuit to be dismissed, thereby denying plaintiff access 20 to the courts and (2) that defendant retaliated against plaintiff for filing a lawsuit against 21 defendant. Dckt. Nos. 1, 5. 22 Currently pending is defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s access to 23 the courts claim, as well as defendant’s request for judicial notice of documents filed in 24 plaintiff’s state court action. Dckt. Nos. 18, 19. As discussed below, the court grants 25 defendant’s request for judicial notice, and finds that plaintiff’s access to the courts claim fails to 26 state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court therefore 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 recommends that plaintiff’s access to the courts claim be dismissed, that defendant’s motion for 2 summary judgment be denied as moot, and that this action proceed on plaintiff’s First 3 Amendment retaliation claim. 4 I. 5 Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice Defendant requests that the court take judicial notice of Exhibit B to his motion for 6 summary judgment, which consists of copies of the documents filed in, and endorsed by, the 7 Solano County Superior Court in Jackson v. Veal, Case Number FCS030779. Defendant’s 8 request is hereby granted. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b) (allowing a court to take judicial notice of a 9 fact “not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is . . . capable of accurate and ready 10 determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned”), (d); see 11 also MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 504 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 12 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980). 13 II. Access to the Courts Claim 14 Plaintiff alleges that defendant obstructed plaintiff’s access to case management 15 conference calls in a lawsuit initiated by plaintiff in the Solano County Superior Court. Dckt. 16 No. 1 at 51 (referencing Jackson v. Veal, Case Number FCS030779). Defendant’s alleged 17 obstruction purportedly caused plaintiff’s case to be dismissed, thereby depriving him of his 18 constitutional right to access the courts. Id. 19 Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 20 817, 828 (1977). “Meaningful access” to the courts is the touchstone of that right. Id. at 823. 21 An inmate alleging a violation of this right must show that he suffered an actual injury. Lewis v. 22 Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-51 (1996). An actual injury is shown, for example, when inadequacies 23 in the law library prevent the inmate from ever filing a complaint, or when a court dismisses the 24 inmate’s complaint for failure to satisfy a technical requirement that the inmate could not have 25 1 26 This page number citation to plaintiff’s complaint is to the page number reflected on the court’s CM/ECF system and not to the page number assigned by plaintiff. 2 1 known about because of deficiencies in the prison’s legal assistance facilities. Id. at 351. The 2 “actual injury” requirement is satisfied only where the frustrated legal claim is a nonfrivolous 3 direct criminal appeal, habeas corpus proceeding, or civil rights challenge to conditions of 4 confinement. Id. at 353 n.3, 354-355 (“Impairment of any other litigating capacity is simply one 5 of the incidental (and perfectly constitutional) consequences of conviction and incarceration.”); 6 see also Simmons v. Sacramento County Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156, 1159-60 (9th Cir. 7 2003); Cornett v. Donovan, 51 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The right of access is designed to 8 ensure that a habeas petition or a civil rights complaint of a person in state custody will reach a 9 court for consideration.”). The right of access to the courts was only extended to “‘civil rights 10 actions’ – i.e., actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to vindicate ‘basic constitutional rights,’” because 11 “the demarcation line between civil rights actions and habeas petitions is not always clear . . . .” 12 Lewis, 518 U.S. at 354-55 (quoting Wolf v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 579 (1974)). 13 The case file reflects that plaintiff’s state court action, Number FCS030779, was 14 grounded exclusively on state law and was not a section 1983 action to vindicate plaintiff’s 15 constitutional rights. See Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Stmt. of Undisp. Facts in Supp. Thereof, Ex. 16 B (“Def.’s Ex. B”), Attach. 1 (Endorsed Filed Copy of Complaint in Solano County Superior 17 Court, dated January 14, 2008) (alleging gross negligence, reckless disregard, and premises 18 liability based on plaintiff’s alleged slip and fall caused by safety hazard on California Medical 19 Facility’s handball court). Before filing his slip and fall claim in state court, plaintiff tried, 20 unsuccessfully, to pursue it in federal court as an Eighth Amendment claim pursuant to section 21 1983. See Jackson v. Veal, No. 2:07-cv-0397-MCE-KJM, Dckt. Nos. 1, 5, 6, 11, 13.2 That 22 action was dismissed on the grounds that plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could 23 be granted and that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity. See Jackson v. Veal, No. 2:07- 24 cv-0397-MCE-KJM, Dckt. No. 21, Dckt. No. 20 at 3 (“Plaintiff’s claim is, in essence, a claim of 25 2 26 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co., 803 F.2d at 504; Wilson, 631 F.2d at 119. 3 1 negligence. Neither negligence nor gross negligence translates to a constitutional deprivation, 2 even if it causes injury.”). See also Def.’s Ex. B, Attach. 7 (plaintiff’s May 19, 2008 Motion for 3 Telephonic Appearance filed in Case Number FCS030779, acknowledging that he had 4 previously filed his slip and fall claim in federal court). 5 Plaintiff’s constitutional right to access to the courts did not extend to his state tort 6 lawsuit, a defect which cannot be cured by amendment. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 355 (right of 7 access “does not guarantee inmates the wherewithal to transform themselves into litigating 8 engines capable of filing everything from shareholder derivative actions to slip-and-fall claims”). 9 The court therefore recommends that plaintiff’s access to the courts claim be dismissed with 10 prejudice for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (“[T]he court shall dismiss the 11 case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . fails to state a claim on which 12 relief may be granted.”). 13 III. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment 14 Defendant’s motion for summary judgment addresses plaintiff’s access to the courts 15 claim only. See Def.’s Motion for Summ. J., Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. Thereof. Defendant 16 argues that summary judgment should be granted in his favor because (1) plaintiff’s claim 17 regarding his inability to appear telephonically fails as a matter of law because the right to access 18 “is only a right to bring complaints to the federal court and not a right to discover such claims or 19 to litigate them effectively once filed with a court;” (2) assuming plaintiff’s claim does not fail as 20 a matter of law, it fails on the merits because plaintiff cannot show defendant’s conduct hindered 21 plaintiff’s access to the courts; and (3) defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because he did 22 not violate plaintiff’s constitutional rights and his conduct was objectively reasonable. Id. at 6-8. 23 Because the court will recommend that plaintiff’s access to the courts claim be dismissed 24 with prejudice pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), the court will also recommend that defendant’s motion 25 for summary judgment be denied as moot. Accordingly, this action should proceed solely on 26 plaintiff’s retaliation claim. 4 1 IV. Conclusion 2 For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. Defendant’s September 10, 2010 request for judicial notice is granted; and 4 2. The Clerk shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this case. 5 Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 6 1. Plaintiff’s access to the courts claim be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 7 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); 8 9 2. Defendant’s September 10, 2010 motion for summary judgment be denied as moot; and 10 3. This action proceed solely on plaintiff’s retaliation claim.3 11 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 12 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 13 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 14 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 15 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 16 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 17 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 18 DATED: June 17, 2011. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 26 Within seven days of any order adopting this recommendation, either party may move to modify the deadline for filing dispositive motions. 5
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
