(PC) Roberson v. CSP-Corcoran Mailroom Staff, et al., No. 1:2017cv01331 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Dismissing 10 Action for Failure to State a Claim; Objections Due within Thirty (30) Days signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 8/29/2018. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Roberson v. CSP-Corcoran Mailroom Staff, et al. Doc. 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLARENCE LONNELL ROBERSON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 Case No. 1:17-cv-01331-AWI-SAB (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM v. (ECF No. 10) CSP-CORCORAN MAILROOM STAFF, et al., OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Clarence Lonnell Roberson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this 19 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s first 20 amended complaint, filed March 12, 2018. (ECF No. 10.) 21 I. 22 SCREENING REQUIREMENT 23 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 24 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 25 The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 26 legally “frivolous or malicious,” that “fail[] to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or 27 that “seek[] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 28 1915(e)(2)(B). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 2 pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 3 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 4 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 5 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate 6 that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights. Jones v. 7 Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). 8 Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings 9 liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 10 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be 11 facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer 12 that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss 13 v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant 14 has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s 15 liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 16 F.3d at 969. 17 II. 18 DISCUSSION 19 Plaintiff alleges that around October 27, 2016, he sent mail to his daughter. Office 20 assistant Zavala told Plaintiff to prove it and that no such mail had been sent out. Plaintiff told 21 her that he had evidence that the items were mailed out and Zavala said he did not. After 22 Plaintiff filed an inmate appeal his package appeared after being missing for two months. 23 Plaintiff brings this action against unknown mailroom staff and office assistant Zavala alleging 24 violation of his rights under the First Amendment. 25 As Plaintiff was previously advised, to state a claim under section 1983, he must show 26 that (1) each defendant acted under color of state law and (2) each defendant deprived him of 27 rights secured by the Constitution or federal law. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 28 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). To state a claim, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant 2 1 personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. This requires that 2 the complaint allege that every defendant acted with the requisite state of mind to violate the 3 underlying constitutional provision. OSU Student Alliance v. Ray, 699 F.3d 1053, 1070 (9th 4 Cir. 2012). 5 Generally speaking, inmates have a right under the First Amendment to send and receive 6 mail. Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1209 (9th Cir. 2017); Witherow v. Paff, 52 F.3d 7 264, 265 (9th Cir. 1995). However, isolated instances of interference with mail without any 8 evidence of improper motive have been found insufficient to state a constitutional claim. See 9 Stevenson v. Koskey, 877 F.2d 1435, 1441 (9th Cir. 1989) (negligent mishandling of inmate 10 mail insufficient to state a constitutional claim); Smith v. Maschner, 899 F.2d 940, 944 (10th Cir. 11 1990) (isolated incidents of mail interference without any evidence of improper motive or 12 resulting interference with the right to counsel or access to the courts do not give rise to a 13 constitutional violation); Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 431 (8th Cir. 1997) (“we have never 14 held or suggested that an isolated, inadvertent instance of opening incoming confidential legal 15 mail will support a § 1983 damage action”); Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 351 (2d Cir. 2003) 16 (an isolated incident of mail tampering is usually insufficient to establish a constitutional 17 violation). 18 Here, liberally construed, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that he placed a package in the 19 mail and after two months it was found without having been mailed out. Plaintiff has only 20 alleged an isolated interference with mail. Additionally, Plaintiff has included no allegations to 21 suggest any wrongful conduct by any prison official that resulted in the interference with the 22 mail. The mere fact that Plaintiff’s package was not mailed does not provide a basis for the 23 Court to reasonably infer that prison officials interfered with his mail, rather than it was just 24 misplaced. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to state a cognizable 25 claim. 26 Further, Plaintiff’s allegation that Zavala told him that no package was mailed is 27 insufficient to demonstrate interference with his mail. Although Plaintiff alleges that after he 28 filed an appeal his package was found, the factual allegations in the complaint must demonstrate 3 1 that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of a plaintiff’s rights. Jones, 297 2 F.3d at 934. The complaint is devoid of any factual allegations of any conduct by Zavala or any 3 other mailroom employee by which the Court could infer that Plaintiff’s federal rights were 4 violated. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79. 5 IV. 6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7 Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim for a violation of his federal rights. 8 Plaintiff’s complaint was previously screened and Plaintiff was advised in an order on January 9 10, 2018 of the legal standards that applied to his claims and was provided with an opportunity to 10 cure the deficiencies in his complaint. (ECF No. 7.) Although Plaintiff was previously notified 11 of the applicable legal standards and the deficiencies in his pleading, and despite guidance from 12 the Court, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is largely identical to the original complaint. 13 Based upon the allegations in Plaintiff’s original and first amended complaint, the Court is 14 persuaded that Plaintiff is unable to allege any additional facts that would support a claim for 15 interference with mail in violation of the First Amendment, and further amendment would be 16 futile. See Hartmann v. CDCR, 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013) (“A district court may deny 17 leave to amend when amendment would be futile.”) Based on the nature of the deficiencies at 18 issue, the Court finds that further leave to amend is not warranted. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 19 1122, 1130 (9th. Cir. 2000); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446-1449 (9th Cir. 1987). 20 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed 21 for Plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim. 22 This findings and recommendations is submitted to the district judge assigned to this 23 action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within thirty (30) 24 days of service of this recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections to this findings and 25 recommendations with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 26 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge will review the 27 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The 28 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the 4 1 waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 2 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: August 29, 2018 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.
