Opinion
2:23-cv-01310-VBF-PD
01-09-2024
Carlton M. Sims v. Correctional Officer Palacios.
Present: The Honorable: Patricia Donahue, U.S. Magistrate Judge
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order Dismissing First Amended Complaint with Leave to Amend
Plaintiff Carlton M. Sims (“Plaintiff”), a California inmate proceeding pro se, filed a First Amended Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Correctional Officer Palacios (“Palacios”). [Dkt. No. 11.]
The Court has screened the First Amended Complaint and finds that it is subject to dismissal without prejudice. Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to file a Second Amended Complaint, as set forth below.
Magistrate judges may dismiss a complaint with leave to amend without approval of the district judge. See McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991).
I. Standard of Review
The Court is required to screen pro se complaints brought by prisoners and dismiss claims that, among other things, are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-(b)(1). In determining whether a complaint states a claim, the Court accepts as true the factual allegations and views all inferences in a light most favorable to him. See Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892-93 (9th Cir. 2011). The Court does not, however, “accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001) as amended on denial of reh'g, 275 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2001). Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court construes the First Amended Complaint liberally. Barrett v. Belleque, 544 F.3d 1060, 1061-62 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
II. The Allegations in the First Amended Complaint
Plaintiff sues Palacios in his individual capacity for “de facto (sic) non fact (sic) or semblance regarding civil rights statute under federal law & mail fraud.” [Dkt. No. 11 at 3.] It appears that Plaintiff is complaining that his constitutional right to be present during inspection of his legal mail was violated. [Id. at 5.]
In 2022, Correctional Officer Rivas delivered legal mail to Plaintiff in his cell at CSP-Lancaster. [Id.] According to Plaintiff, if an “investigation is conducted with Palacios/Correctional Officer Rivas, interview should reveal [Plaintiff's] allegations as true and correct.” [Id.] Plaintiff alleges that he did not receive correspondence from California Legal Support Group. [Id.] He alleges that he submitted his legal mail to Palacios in the presence of his cell mate. [Id.] He further alleges that he and Palacios “were argumentative to each other” but that he did not violate policy. [Id.] Plaintiff requests $20,000 in monetary damages. [Id. at 6.]
III. DISCUSSION
To establish liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a defendant, while acting under color of state law, caused a deprivation of the plaintiff's federal rights. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). The First Amended Complaint contains conclusory allegations that Palacios violated federal “civil rights statutes” and committed “mail fraud” but contains insufficient facts demonstrating what Palacios did or failed to do. [Dkt. No. 11 at 3.]
To the extent that Plaintiff wishes to state a claim under the First Amendment against Palacios, the First Amended Complaint fails to state sufficient facts to support a claim. The Ninth Circuit has held that inmates “have a protected First Amendment interest in having properly marked legal mail opened only in their presence.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr. 849 F.3d 1204, 1211 (9th Cir. 2017). This First Amendment protection extends to properly marked civil legal mail, in addition to properly marked criminal legal mail. Id. at 1208-12. Prison officials are permitted to inspect, but not read, an inmate's outgoing legal mail. Nordstrom v. Ryan, 856 F.3d 1265, 1272 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that an Arizona prison policy that allowed outgoing legal mail to be inspected page by page outside the presence of the inmate violated the First Amendment).
To state a valid First Amendment claim for improper opening of legal mail, prisoners need not allege a “longstanding practice” of violations, nor are they required to show any actual injury beyond the violation itself. Hayes, 849 F.3d at 1212-13. However, the negligent opening of a prisoner's legal mail outside the inmate's presence does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation and, therefore, does not violate § 1983. Id. at 1218 (“An allegation that prison officials opened a prisoner's legal mail, without an allegation that the mail was deliberately and not negligently opened, is not sufficient to state a cause of action under § 1983.”) (Bybee, J., concurring); id. at 1212 (“Hayes has alleged a plausible claim that his protected mail was arbitrarily or capriciously opened outside his presence on two separate occasions.”).
A plaintiff must show that the opening of “legal mail” was due to more than negligence to state a constitutional violation. Cornel Jackson v. Jason Quick, et. al, 2022 WL 7688183, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2022); Floyd v. Ada Cnty., 2020 WL 6047758, at *6 (D. Idaho Oct. 13, 2020) (citing Hayes, 849 F.3d at 1212, 1218, and Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 396 (2015)). A single instance of opening legal mail outside the presence of an individual in custody, “without allegations showing prison staff acted deliberately as opposed to merely inadvertently,” is insufficient to state a constitutional violation. Ricalls v. Hinton, 2020 WL 2128648, at *5, n. 4 (C.D. Cal. May 5, 2020).
Here, the allegations in the First Amended Complaint are insufficient to state a First Amendment claim. Plaintiff alleges that he submitted legal mail to Palacios in the presence of his cell mate. [Dkt. No. 11 at 5.] Plaintiff, however, fails to allege any facts demonstrating whether Palacios opened his outgoing confidential mail. In addition, Plaintiff does not allege facts to show whether Palacios acted intentionally rather than inadvertently, or whether Palacios read the correspondence. Plaintiff does not allege whether he presented his confidential mail unsealed to designated staff and whether staff removed the contents to ensure there is no prohibited material. He also does not allege whether the correspondence pertained to a criminal or civil matter. In sum, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the First Amendment.
ORDER
For these reasons, the First Amended Complaint is dismissed with leave to amend.
If Plaintiff intends to pursue this matter, he shall file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) by February 6, 2024.
Plaintiff is advised that a SAC would entirely replace the First Amended Complaint in this action. Any amended complaint must:
(a) be labeled “Second Amended Complaint;”
(b) be complete in and of itself and not refer in any manner to prior complaints, i.e., it must include all of the claims on which Plaintiff seeks to proceed, Local Rule 15-2;
(c) contain a “short plain” statement of the claim(s) for relief, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a);
(d) make each allegation “simple, concise and direct,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1);
(e) make allegations in numbered paragraphs, “each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b); and
(f) set forth clearly the sequence of events (including specific relevant dates) which allegedly gives rise to the claim(s) for relief, including what each defendant did and how each specific defendant's conduct injured plaintiff.
If, given the contents of this Order, Plaintiff elects not to proceed in this action, he may expedite matters by signing and returning the attached Notice of Dismissal by February 6, 2024, which will result in the voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice.
Plaintiff is cautioned that, absent further order of the Court, his failure to timely file a Second Amended Complaint or Notice of Dismissal may result in the dismissal of this action with or without prejudice on the grounds above or for failure to diligently prosecute.
Finally, the Clerk is directed to provide a Central District of California Civil Rights Complaint Form, CV-66, to Plaintiff to facilitate his filing of a Second Amended Complaint if he elects to proceed in that fashion.
Attachments:
--Central District of California Civil Rights Complaint Form (CV-66)
--Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (CV-09)