Williams v. Gore et al, No. 3:2012cv02952 - Document 33 (S.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint 24 . Based on the foregoing, the Court Grants Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court Dismisses Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint without prejudice. The Court Denies Plaintiff leave to amend. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this action. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 12/18/2013. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(vam)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Williams v. Gore et al Doc. 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JAMES M. WILLIAMS, 11 CASE NO. 12CV2952-MMA (WMc) Plaintiff, 12 13 vs. [Doc. No. 24] 14 15 16 WILLIAM D. GORE, Sheriff of San Diego County, et al, Defendants. 17 18 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff James M. Williams, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis, has filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against Defendants 20 William D. Gore, Sheriff of San Diego County, and the County of San Diego. See 21 Doc. No. 22. Plaintiff alleges violations of his First Amendment rights arising out of 22 Defendants’ purported failure to provide meaningful access to the courts. 23 Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 24 Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS 25 Defendants’ motion. 26 27 BACKGROUND This matter arises out of events occurring while Plaintiff was incarcerated at 28 George Baily Detention Center and San Diego Central Jail, in the custody of the -1- 12CV2952 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Sheriff of San Diego County.1 Generally, Plaintiff contends that Defendants 2 violated his First Amendment right of access to the courts because in lieu of visiting 3 a law library, he was offered only limited access to legal research materials through 4 the County’s contract with Legal Research Associates. According to Plaintiff, the 5 lack of access to a law library prevented him from pursuing a federal civil rights 6 action for Eighth Amendment claims arising out of the denial of medical treatment 7 and physical injuries sustained while incarcerated. 8 Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants frustrated his access to the courts by 9 failing to provide sufficient postage for mailing legal documents to the courts; 10 failing to provide ink pens, sufficient paper, and envelopes; and failing to provide 11 sufficient photocopies of court documents and notary services. Plaintiff claims that 12 these deficiencies prevented him from pursuing his federal civil rights action. 13 Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. 14 Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s SAC in its entirety, arguing that 15 Plaintiff fails to state a plausible First Amendment claim. 16 17 LEGAL STANDARD To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual 18 matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. 19 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 20 544, 555 (2007) (quotation marks omitted); Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 21 1240, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2011). The Court must accept the well-pleaded factual 22 allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving 23 party. Daniels-Hall v. National Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010); 24 Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 910 (9th Cir. 2007). Further, although the pleading 25 standard is now higher, the Ninth Circuit has continued to emphasize that prisoners 26 27 1 Because this case comes before the Court on a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept as true all material allegations in the complaint and must also construe the 28 complaint, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002). -2- 12CV2952 1 proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are still entitled to have their pleadings 2 liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. 3 Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012). 4 DISCUSSION 5 1. Plaintiff’s First Amendment Claim 6 Plaintiff sues Defendant Gore in his individual capacity for violation of his 7 First Amendment right of access to the courts. Plaintiff also alleges his First 8 Amendment claim against the County pursuant to Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 9 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). To maintain a First Amendment claim against either 10 defendant, Plaintiff must sufficiently allege that he was deprived of a constitutional 11 right. Defendants argue that he has not done so. The Court reaches the same 12 conclusion, albeit by a different path. 13 Under the First Amendment, state prisoners have a right to access the courts. 14 Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 346 (1996), citing Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 15 821, 823, 828 (1977). “[A]ccess to the courts means the opportunity to prepare, 16 serve and file whatever pleadings or other documents are necessary or appropriate in 17 order to commence or prosecute court proceedings affecting one’s personal liberty.” 18 Id. at 384 (Thomas, J. concurring). The right is limited, but includes civil rights 19 actions. Id. at 354. To prove a violation of the right of access to the courts, a 20 prisoner must establish, inter alia, “actual injury” – that is, “actual prejudice with 21 respect to contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing 22 deadline or to present a claim.” Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348; see also Monell, 436 U.S. at 23 658. 24 There are two types of access to the courts claims: backward-looking and 25 forward-looking. See Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 413-14 (2002). Here, 26 Plaintiff alleges a backward-looking claim concerning a lost opportunity to litigate 27 his civil rights claims. To adequately plead a backward-looking denial of access to 28 the courts claim, Plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to show: (1) the loss of a non-3- 12CV2952 1 frivolous or arguable underlying claim; (2) the official acts frustrating the litigation; 2 and (3) a remedy that may be awarded as recompense but that is not otherwise 3 available in a future suit. Christopher, 536 U.S. at 414-15. 4 Plaintiff cannot satisfy this pleading standard. Plaintiff alleges that he lost the 5 opportunity to pursue non-frivolous Eighth Amendment claims related to his denial 6 of adequate medical treatment and the deliberate indifference of prison officials to 7 his serious medical needs. He sufficiently alleges facts in support of his underlying 8 Eighth Amendment claims. Id. at 417 (holding that a “complaint should state the 9 underlying claim . . . just as if it were being independently pursued.”). Plaintiff 10 further alleges that his ability to litigate his claims was frustrated by Defendants’ 11 ongoing practice of contracting with Legal Research Associates to provide 12 inadequate legal assistance, depriving him of access to a law library, denying and 13 prohibiting the receipt and distribution of pens and paper necessary for drafting legal 14 claims, prohibiting the distribution of adequate envelopes and postage necessary for 15 mailing documents to the courts, and prohibiting photocopying. SAC, Count One ¶¶ 16 3-4; Count Two ¶ 4. According to Plaintiff, these actions resulted in a “total denial 17 of the means and materials necessary to secure the capability to prepare and file 18 actionable claims to the Courts.” Id., Count Two ¶ 5. 19 Plaintiff seeks damages as a remedy in this suit. However, such a remedy 20 remains available with respect to his underlying Eighth Amendment claims. 21 Christopher, 536 U.S. at 421. The claims are not time-barred nor does Plaintiff 22 otherwise allege that they have not been “lost.” Id. The statute of limitations 23 applicable in section 1983 actions is the two-year period set forth at California Civil 24 Procedure Code § 335.1 for personal injury actions. See Maldonado v. Harris, 370 25 F.3d 945, 954 (9th Cir. 2004). Imprisonment delays the accrual of the cause of 26 action for up to two years pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 352.1. 27 As such, Plaintiff has a maximum of four years to file a civil rights action based on 28 his Eighth Amendment claims. The events giving rise to these causes of action -4- 12CV2952 1 occurred in March and April 2011. The statute of limitations has not yet expired. 2 Furthermore, Plaintiff does not allege any current impediment to pursuing his 3 Eighth Amendment claims. Plaintiff concedes that he now has access to a law 4 library, and he clearly has not been frustrated in his efforts to litigate. Lewis v. 5 Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-49 (1996) (to state an access to courts claim, inmate must 6 “demonstrate that a nonfrivolous legal claim had been frustrated or was being 7 impeded”). In sum, Plaintiff fails to allege a “remedy that may be awarded as 8 recompense but not otherwise available in some suit that may yet be brought.” 9 Christopher, 536 U.S. at 415. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims are viable .2 10 Therefore, his First Amendment claim is not. 11 2. Leave to Amend 12 The Court must give a pro se litigant leave to amend his complaint “unless it 13 determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other 14 facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (quotation 15 omitted), citing Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1447 (9th Cir. 1987). Here, for the 16 reasons set forth above, Plaintiff cannot amend his allegations to state a plausible 17 First Amendment access-to-courts claim against Defendants. Nor may Plaintiff 18 amend his complaint in this action to add his underlying Eighth Amendment claims. 19 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) requires that the right to relief arise out of 20 common events and contain common questions of law or fact. “Unrelated claims 21 against different defendants belong in different suits . . . .” George v. Smith, 507 22 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims arise out of 23 events unrelated to those precipitating his access-to-courts claim, and indict the 24 25 2 The Court acknowledges that Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims ultimately may not be successful if he, inter alia, failed to exhaust his administrative remedies 26 with respect to those claims. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 27 2002) (exhaustion must be satisfied prior to filing suit). However, a prisoner’s failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense, not a pleading requirement, and must be 28 demonstrated by the defense. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 127 S. Ct. 910, 921 (2007); Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). -5- 12CV2952 1 actions of different defendants. Plaintiff may pursue his Eighth Amendment claims 2 against the appropriate defendants in a separate civil rights lawsuit. 3 4 CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 5 The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint without prejudice 6 for failing to state a claim upon which relief maybe granted pursuant to Federal Rule 7 of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Court DENIES Plaintiff leave to amend. See 8 Robinson v. California Bd. of Prison Terms, 997 F. Supp. 1303, 1308 (C.D. Cal. 9 1998) (“Since plaintiff has not, and cannot, state a claim containing an arguable 10 basis in law, this action should be dismissed without leave to amend; any 11 amendment would be futile.”), citing Newland v. Dalton, 81 F.3d 904, 907 (9th Cir. 12 1996). The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this 13 action. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 DATED: December 18, 2013 16 17 Hon. Michael M. Anello United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -6- 12CV2952
]]>
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.
