(PC) Jackson v. Large, No. 1:2006cv00774 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by Magistrate Judge William M. Wunderlich on 4/7/09: Recommending that this action 12 be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; Objections to F&R due by 4/30/2009. (Hellings, J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Jackson v. Large Doc. 13 1 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 6 DEMETROUS JACKSON, 7 Plaintiff, 1:06 CV 0774 LJO WMW PC 8 vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9 K. LARGE, Defendant. 10 11 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding prose in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 12 § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 13 § 636(b)(1). 14 This action proceeds on the August 18, 2008, second amended complaint filed in 15 response to an earlier order dismissing the first amended complaint. The first amended 16 complaint was filed in response to an order dismissing the original complaint and granting 17 Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. 18 Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and 19 Rehabilitation at the California Correctional Institution at Tehachapi, brings this civil rights 20 action against defendant Captain K. Large, an employee of the CDCR at CCI Tehachapi. 21 In the order dismissing the original complaint, the court noted the following. Plaintiff’s 22 claims in this complaint is that he was denied access to the courts. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges 23 that he arrived at Tehachapi in February of 2006, and his legal materials did not arrive until May 24 31, 2006. Upon Plaintiff’s arrival, he sought “relief from an order entered by the Superior Court 25 that was unlawful.” The only specific conduct charged to Captain Large is that Plaintiff “was 26 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 denied, and limited to the court by the named defendant.” Because states must ensure indigent prisoners meaningful access to the courts, prison 3 officials are required to provide either (1) adequate law libraries, or (2) adequate assistance from 4 persons trained in the law. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977). Under prior law, 5 Bounds was treated as establishing "core requirements," such that a prisoner alleging deprivation 6 of the Bounds minima need not allege actual injury to state a constitutional claim. Sands v. 7 Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1171 (9th Cir. 1989). Recent Supreme Court precedent abolishes such 8 approach, however, providing that all inmate claims for interference with access to the court 9 include "actual injury" as an element. Casey v. Lewis, 518 U.S.343 (1996). 10 To establish a Bounds violation, a prisoner must show that his prison's law library or legal 11 assistance program frustrated or impeded his ability to pursue a nonfrivolous legal claim. Casey, 12 supra, 518 U.S. 343, 347. The right of access does not require the State to "enable the prisoner to 13 discover grievances" or to "litigate effectively once in court." The Casey Court further limits the 14 right of access to the courts, as follows: 15 16 17 18 19 Finally, we must observe that the injury requirement is not satisfied by just any type of frustrated legal claim .... Bounds does not guarantee inmates the wherewithal to transform themselves into litigating engines capable of filing everything from shareholder derivative actions to slip-and-fall claims. The tools it requires to be provided are those that the inmates need in order to attack their sentences, directly or collaterally, and in order to challenge the conditions of their confinement. Impairment of any other litigating capacity is simply one of the incidental (and perfectly constitutional) consequences of conviction and incarceration. 20 Casey, supra, 518 U.S. at 346. 21 The statute under which this action proceeds plainly requires that there be an actual 22 connection or link between the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been 23 suffered by plaintiff. See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo 24 v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to 25 the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an 26 2 1 affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is 2 legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which the complaint is made.” Johnson v. 3 Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 4 Plaintiff was advised that in his first amended complaint, he failed to specify the injury 5 that he suffered. Plaintiff referred to a court order, but did not specifically indicate what type of 6 action he was litigating. Further, Plaintiff did not charge the named defendant with specific 7 conduct that caused him actual injury as that term is defined above. Plaintiff simply alleged that 8 the defendant was responsible for the delay in receiving Plaintiff’s legal property. 9 The court found the allegations in plaintiff's complaint vague and conclusory. Plaintiff 10 was directed to set forth all of his claims and factual allegations in the amended complaint. The 11 court noted that the April 28, 2008, first amended complaint failed to charge any conduct to the 12 defendant. In the first amended complaint, Plaintiff simply alleged that his legal materials were 13 missing, and he would like to be compensated. There was no conduct charged to the defendant. 14 The court granted Plaintiff an opportunity to file a second amended complaint. 15 The second amended complaint consists of a single allegation: “When I got here I had a 16 lot of legal books they came up missing..” There are no other facts alleged, and there is no 17 conduct specifically charged to the defendant. The court therefore recommends dismissal of the 18 claims made in the second amended complaint with prejudice for failure to state a federal claim 19 upon which the court could grant relief. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 20 1987) (prisoner must be given notice of deficiencies and opportunity to amend prior to 21 dismissing for failure to state a claim). 22 23 24 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B). Within 26 3 1 twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file 2 written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 3 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 4 objections within the specified time waives all objections to the judge’s findings of fact. See 5 Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). Failure to file objections within the 6 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 7 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 7, 2009 mmkd34 /s/ William M. Wunderlich UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4
]]>
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.
