Arias-Maldonado v. Superior Court, County of Santa Clara ( 2020 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 JAIME ARIAS-MALDONADO, Case No. 19-cv-01328-EMC 6 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 7 v. Docket No. 20 8 SUPERIOR COURT, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, 9 Defendant. 10 11 12 Jaime Arias-Maldonado, formerly an inmate at the Santa Clara County Jail, commenced 13 this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by filing a “motion to safeguard civil rights 14 of pretrial detainee,” Docket No. 1, and other miscellaneous documents. 15 The Court conducted an initial screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and dismissed the 16 pleading with leave to amend. Docket No. 16. The Court explained that Mr. Arias-Maldonado’s 17 several filings were difficult to understand but focused on criminal charges pending against Mr. 18 Arias-Maldonado and appeared to seek federal court authorization to represent himself in state 19 court criminal proceedings and for pro per privileges at the jail. Id. at 2-3. The Court determined 20 that the Younger abstention doctrine required the dismissal of Mr. Arias-Maldonado’s claims 21 seeking interference in the state court criminal proceedings against him. Id. at 4-5 (citing Younger 22 v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)). The Court permitted Mr. Arias-Maldonado to file an amended 23 complaint to attempt to allege a claim for a denial of the constitutional right of access to the 24 courts. Id. at 5. The Court identified the elements of a claim for a denial of the constitutional 25 right of access to the court, including the need for a plaintiff to show an actual injury. 26 Mr. Arias-Maldonado filed an amended complaint (Docket No. 17) that again had 27 confused allegations that pertained mostly to his efforts to obtain pro per status and his 1 permitted Mr. Arias-Maldonado to file a second amended complaint to attempt to allege his claims 2 in a more coherent manner. The Court once again identified the elements of a claim for a denial of 3 the constitutional right of access to the court and highlighted the need for a plaintiff to allege an 4 actual injury: 5 Inmates have a constitutional right of access to the courts. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996). The Ninth Circuit has 6 “traditionally differentiated between two types of access to court claims: those involving prisoners’ right[s] to affirmative assistance 7 and those involving prisoners’ rights to litigate without active interference.” Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1102 (9th 8 Cir.2011) (emphasis in source), overruled on other grounds as stated by Richey v. Dahne, 807 F.3d 1202, 1209 n.6 (9th Cir. 2015). 9 To allege a claim for denial of access to the courts of the first sort 10 (i.e., denial of affirmative assistance), a plaintiff must allege facts showing that there was an inadequacy in the prison’s legal access 11 program that caused him an actual injury. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. at 350-51. To prove an actual injury, the prisoner must show 12 that the inadequacy hindered him in presenting a non-frivolous claim concerning his conviction or conditions of confinement. See 13 id. at 355. Examples of impermissible hindrances include: a prisoner whose complaint was dismissed for failure to satisfy some 14 technical requirement of which, because of deficiencies in the prison's legal assistance facilities, he could not have known; and a 15 prisoner who had “suffered arguably actionable harm” that he wished to bring to the attention of the court, but was so stymied by 16 the inadequacies of the prison’s services that he was unable even to file a complaint. See id. at 351. 17 To allege a claim for a violation of the right to litigate without active 18 interference, the plaintiff must identify the interference and allege that he has suffered an actual injury, such as the dismissal of his 19 pending action. See Silva, 658 F.3d at 1103–04. Additionally, the “underlying cause of action, whether anticipated or lost, is an 20 element that must be described in the complaint, just as much as allegations must describe the official acts frustrating the litigation.” 21 Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002). The underlying cause of action must be described by allegations in the complaint 22 sufficient to give fair notice to a defendant, id. at 416, and to the court in a prisoner action that must be screened under 28 U.S.C. § 23 1915A. 24 Docket No. 19 at 2 (quoting Docket No. 16 at 5-6). The Court also explained that it was unclear 25 whether a § 1983 claim could exist for interference with the right to self-representation recognized 26 in Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), but noted that a plaintiff would have to at least 27 allege how he was harmed by any claimed interference with the Faretta right. Docket No. 19 at 2- 1 Mr. Arias-Maldonado then filed a second amended petition for relief that is now before the 2 Court for consideration. Docket No. 20. Mr. Arias-Maldonado alleges that he was detained for 3 nearly 40 months until his acquittal in December 2019, and that bail and own-recognizance release 4 were denied. Id. at 1. He also alleges that, due to a misunderstanding at a pretrial hearing, a 5 superior court clerk mistakenly marked Mr. Arias-Maldonado as being represented by counsel and 6 conveyed that incorrect information to persons at the jail, which led to him not being given his full 7 pro se privileges. 8 The second amended petition fails to state a claim for denial of access to the courts because 9 no actual injury is alleged, even though the Court has twice informed Mr. Arias-Maldonado of the 10 need to allege an actual injury for such a claim. Mr. Arias-Maldonado alleges no facts that any 11 defendant’s failure to grant him pro se privileges or recognize him as self-represented caused the 12 pretrial detention or the superior court’s failure to release him on bail or his own recognizance. 13 And he alleges no facts that show an actual injury as a result of the superior court clerk allegedly 14 conveying to the jail that Mr. Arias-Maldonado was represented by counsel (rather than 15 representing himself). Nor does not he allege facts that plausibly show any harm as a result of the 16 clerk’s failure to identify him as representing himself; indeed, he states in his second amended 17 petition that he was acquitted in that case. Without any actual injury, the access-to-the-courts 18 claim fails as a matter of law. And without any harm resulting from not being designated as a 19 self-represented criminal defendant, the Faretta claim also fails. Further leave to amend will not 20 be granted because it would be futile: the Court has twice informed Mr. Arias-Maldonado of the 21 need to allege facts showing an actual injury and harm from defendants’ actions and he has been 22 unable or unwilling to do so. 23 For the foregoing reasons, this action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon 24 which relief may be granted. The clerk shall close the file. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: April 29, 2020 27 ______________________________________