(PC) Cassells v. Robinson ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEITH CASSELLS, No. 2:20-cv-0322-KJM-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 F. ROBINSON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After dismissal of plaintiff’s original complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 19 § 1915A(a) (ECF No. 7), he has filed an amended complaint (ECF No. 12), which the court must 20 now screen.1 21 Like the original complaint, the amended complaint alleges that defendants, employees at 22 California Medical Facility’s mail room and trust office, interfered with correspondence sent to 23 plaintiff from Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. The first piece of correspondence was 24 postmarked October 7, 2019. ECF No. 12 at 4. According to plaintiff, defendants Sanchez and 25 1 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 26 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of 27 the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 Id. § 1915A(b). 1 Boos did not deliver the letter to plaintiff because it did not include plaintiff’s CDCR number. 2 Id. at 3. They stamped the letter “return to sender,” but allegedly never placed it back in the mail. 3 Plaintiff claims this was censorship in violation of the First Amendment. A second letter from 4 Met Life, post-marked October 11, 2019, contained a check in the amount of $2,700.33. Id. at 4. 5 The check was to plaintiff as the beneficiary of his deceased mother’s life insurance policy, but it 6 did not have plaintiff’s inmate number on it. Id. at 4. Plaintiff alleges that defendants Robinson 7 and Juricek wrongfully wrote his inmate number on the check and deposited it into a CDCR 8 account. Id. at 4, 16. Plaintiff claims their conduct violated his right to due process. Plaintiff 9 also claims defendants improperly handled a related inmate grievance, thereby violating his 10 “administrative appeal rights.” Id. at 6. For the reasons stated below, none of these claims can 11 survive screening. 12 First, an isolated incident of tampering with a prisoner’s non-legal mail generally does not 13 give rise to a constitutional violation. See Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 351 (2d. Cir. 2003) 14 (holding that “an isolated incident of mail tampering is usually insufficient to establish a 15 constitutional violation.”); Smith v. Maschner, 899 F.2d 940, 944 (10th Cir. 1990) (holding that 16 an isolated incident of mail interference, absent any evidence of improper motive, does not give 17 rise to a constitutional violation); Watkins v. Curry, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123356, 2011 WL 18 5079532, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2011) (citing Lingo v. Boone, 402 F. Supp. 768, 773 (C.D. 19 Cal. 1975) (“Absent evidence of a broader plan or course of conduct to censor plaintiff’s mail 20 unconstitutionally, an honest error by prison officials does not justify relief under § 1983.”). 21 Plaintiff’s allegations show, at worst, a single instance of mail interference, which does not give 22 rise to a constitutional violation. 23 Second, plaintiff’s claim about the insurance check is essentially an allegation of a 24 negligent or unauthorized deprivation of property by state officials. Such a claim is not a 25 cognizable federal claim, because California provides an adequate remedy for inmates who suffer 26 property loss at the hands of prison employees. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 27 1994) (citing Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 844.6, 900-915 and Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 28 (1984)). 2 V UING INI VERT tw POC eee VM VI 1 And finally, plaintiff cannot maintain a claim based on a violation of his administrative 2 appeal rights. Indeed, there are no constitutional requirements regarding how a grievance system 3 is operated, even if plaintiff believes it to be unfair. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 4 (9th Cir. 2003); Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993). 5 Despite notice of the complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to amend, plaintiff is 6 unable to state a cognizable claim for relief and this action should be dismissed without further 7 leave to amend. Plumeau v. School Dist. # 40, 130 F.3d 432, 439 (9th Cir. 1997) (denial of leave 8 to amend appropriate where further amendment would be futile). 9 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiffs amended complaint (ECF No. 12) be 10 DISMISSED for failure to state a claim, without leave to amend, and the Clerk be directed to 11 close the case. 12 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 13 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 14 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 15 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 16 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 17 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 18 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 19 Dated: September 22, 2020. 20 tid, PDEA EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28