(PC) Leonard v. Zuniga ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FREDERICK E. LEONARD, No. 2:19-cv-2594 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ZUNIGA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, seeks relief under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (“FAC”), ECF 20 No. 16, is before the court for screening. 21 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 22 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 23 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 24 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 25 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 26 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2). 27 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 28 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 1 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 2 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 3 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 4 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 5 Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 6 A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 7 which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in 8 support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 9 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt 10 Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under 11 this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hosp. 12 Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light 13 most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. 14 McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 15 II. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 16 The FAC alleges that on July 11, 2019, at California State Prison – Solano, Officer 17 Zuniga, Sergeant Griffith, and Lieutenant Williams violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights by 18 confiscating his legal materials and preventing him from entering the prison library for a five- 19 hour period, causing plaintiff to miss a deadline in another civil rights case that was pending in 20 the Ninth Circuit. ECF No. 16 at 3-5. 21 Claim One is stated against Officer Zuniga. It alleges that Zuniga took plaintiff’s legal 22 materials from him and told him that there was no law library morning program that day, which 23 was not true. Id. at 3. Claim Two is stated against Lt. Williams and Claim Three against Sgt. 24 Griffith, both on grounds of “failure to act.” Id. at 4, 5. Plaintiff alleges that when he reported 25 Zuniga’s actions to Griffith and Williams, both of whom were defendant Zuniga’s supervisors, 26 they did nothing to facilitate the return of plaintiff’s legal documents or his access to the law 27 library. Id. at 4-5. Instead, they both simply told plaintiff to “take [the matter] up with Zuniga.” 28 See id. As supervisors of Zuniga who had been made fully aware that Zuniga was in the process 1 of violating plaintiff’s constitutional rights, plaintiff contends that defendants Griffith and 2 Williams had a duty to intervene and stop the violation. Id. 3 The FAC states that plaintiff was permitted to retrieve his property that afternoon. Id. at 4 3. However, being deprived of his legal property and being denied access to the prison law 5 library during that period prevented plaintiff from being able to timely file objections and/or 6 challenges to the Ninth Circuit’s grant of an adverse motion in case he was litigating. Id. at 3-5. 7 III. THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT STATES A CLAIM FOR VIOLATION OF 8 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO ACCESS THE COURTS 9 Inmates have a fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts in criminal, habeas, 10 and civil rights matters. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 346, 354 (1996). To state a claim, a 11 prisoner must establish that he suffered an actual injury. Id. at 349. The injury requirement is 12 satisfied where a prisoner is prevented from meeting a filing deadline or presenting a claim in a 13 pending case. Id. at 348; see also Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415-16 (2002). The 14 allegations of the FAC are sufficient to state an access to courts claim against Officer Zuniga.1 15 The claim also lies against Zuniga’s named supervisors, Griffith and Williams. Although 16 there is no vicarious liability under § 1983, a supervisor is liable for his own acts or omissions. 17 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009). “A supervisor is . . . liable for constitutional 18 violations of his subordinates if he participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the 19 violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 20 The allegations of the FAC indicate that Williams and Griffith “acquiescence[d] in the 21 constitutional deprivations of which the complaint is made[.]” Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554, 22 570 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, plaintiff had adequately alleged supervisory liability for the 23 alleged denial of access to courts. 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 25 1. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c), service of the first 26 amended complaint (ECF No. 16) and the cognizable claims therein is appropriate; 27 1 Plaintiff characterizes the claim in multiple, alternative ways, see id. at 3, but the facts are 28 consistent with a denial of access to court and the additional language is mere surplusage. ] 2. Plaintiff has stated cognizable claims First Amendment claims (Claims One through 2 || Three) against the following CSP — Solano employee defendants: 3 e Correctional Officer Zuniga; 4 e Correctional Officer Griffith, a sergeant, and 5 e Correctional Officer Williams, a lieutenant. 6 3. If defendants either waive service or are personally served, they are required to reply 7 || to the complaint. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2). 8 Under separate order, the court shall direct that service be initiated on these defendants 9 || under the court’s E-Service Pilot Program for civil rights cases for the Eastern District of 10 | California. 11 | DATED: August 20, 2021 ~ 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28