Bauer v. Macomber

• Decision Date: 12 January 2015
• Docket Number: No. 2:14-cv-2028 AC P,2:14-cv-2028 AC P
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
• Parties: MICHAEL RAYMOND BAUER, Plaintiff, v. JEFF MACOMBER, et al., Defendants.

MICHAEL RAYMOND BAUER, Plaintiff, v. JEFF MACOMBER, et al., Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-2028 AC P

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

January 12, 2015

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. ECF No. 6.

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). ECF No. 4. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect twenty percent of the preceding month's income credited to plaintiff's prison trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff's account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT & LEGAL STANDARDS

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).

A. Legal Standards

1. Screening Standard

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

A complaint must contain more than a "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;" it must contain factual allegations sufficient to "raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). It is insufficient for the pleading to contain a statement of facts that "merely creates a suspicion" that the pleader might have a legally cognizable right of action. Id. (quoting 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216, pp. 235-35 (3d ed.2004)). Rather, the complaint "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id.

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court "must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint," Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 56), construe those allegations in the light most favorable to theplaintiff, Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. 544), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 3055 (2011), and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 340 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738 (1976)).

2. Section 1983

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must allege facts which, if true, would show: "(1) that a right [of plaintiff's] secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated; and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under color of state law." Campbell v. State of Washington Dept. of Social and Health Services, 671 F.3d 837, 842 n.5 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 275 (2012); Padilla v. Lynch, 398 F.2d 481, 482 (9th Cir. 1968). Further, plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant and show an affirmative link between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984) ("plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff's claim") (internal quotation marks omitted).

A key consideration applicable to this complaint is that the federal rules contemplate brevity. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (complaint must be "a short and plain statement"); Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) ("Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system, which was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a claim"). Plaintiff's claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d) (1) ("[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise and direct"); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) ("[t]he Federal Rules require that averments 'be simple, concise, and direct'"); see Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 597 (1998) (reiterating that "firm application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is fully warranted" in prisoner cases).

The courts do grant leeway to pro se plaintiffs in construing their pleadings. See, e.g., Brazil v. U.S. Dept. of Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995) ("[a]lthough a pro se litigant ... may be entitled to great leeway when the court construes his pleadings, those pleadings nonetheless must meet some minimum threshold in providing a defendant with notice of what it isthat it allegedly did wrong"). Even with leeway and liberal construction, however, the complaint must not force the court and the defendants to guess at what is being alleged against whom, require the court to spend its time "preparing the 'short and plain statement' which Rule 8 obligated plaintiffs to submit," or require the court and defendants to prepare lengthy outlines "to determine who is being sued for what." McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1179. An excessively long and repetitive pleading, containing much narrative and story-telling, naming many defendants and other named individuals who may or may not be defendants, and with no clear statement of which individuals did what, very likely will result in delaying the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and ultimately, an order dismissing plaintiff's action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, for violation of these instructions. Id.

3. Right of Access to the Courts

"[T]he fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law." Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977)); Phillips v. Hust, 588 F.3d 652, 655 (9th Cir. 2009) (same). The right of access to the courts, however, is limited to non-frivolous direct criminal appeals, habeas corpus proceedings, and § 1983 actions. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354-55 (1996); Dahl v. Virga, 2014 WL 4678319, at * 3 (E.D. Cal. 2014) (Claire, M.J.).

In order to frame a claim of a denial of the right to access the courts, a prisoner must allege facts showing that he has suffered "actual injury," a jurisdictional requirement derived from the standing doctrine. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 349. An "actual injury" is "actual prejudice with respect to contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a claim." Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348 (citation and internal quotations omitted); see also Alvarez v. Hill, 518 F.3d 1152, 1155 n.1 (9th Cir.2008) (noting that "[f]ailure to show that a 'non-frivolous legal claim had been frustrated' is fatal" to a claim for denial of access to legal materials) (quoting Lewis, 518 U.S. at 353 & 353 n.4).

The provision of an adequate law library (or legal assistance) is not an end in itself, "but only the means for ensuring 'a reasonably adequate opportunity to present claimed violations offundamental constitutional rights to the courts.'" Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351 (quoting Bounds, 430 U.S. at 825). Indeed, there is no "abstract, freestanding right to a law library or legal assistance." Id., at 351. Therefore, a prisoner's complaint will not survive screening if it simply alleges facts showing "that his prison's law library or legal assistance program is subpar in some theoretical sense." Id.

B. The Complaint

Plaintiff's sixteen page narrative alleges that he was denied his right of access to the courts because of various deficiencies in the prison law library, its staff, and impaired access to that library. The complaint alleges the following conduct in 2012: (1) defendants A. Nappi, D. Hamad, K. Blessing and D. Hobard did not allow sufficient "physical access" to the law library (ECF No. 1 at 4 & 14); (2) defendants A. Nappi, D. Hamad, K. Blessing and Timothy Virga improperly processed (or supervised) inmates' "paging" requests, and sent the wrong materials from the library to inmates (id., at 5 & 14); (3) defendant Nappi failed to provide the correct forms plaintiff needed "to file a valid court action" (id., at 5-6); (4) defendants SA Casto, D. Hamad and K. Blessing "allow[ed] library clerks to send me materials by page number and not by section number as I have requested" (id., at 6); (5) defendants J.R. Bradford, Hamad, K. Blessing and Timothy Virga, would not allow plaintiff "to obtain up to 50 pages of documents" which plaintiff...