United States District Court, D. Oregon
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Lee Cannon ("plaintiff), a pretrial detainee at the
Lincoln County Jail, brings this proceeding pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. The Court previously granted plaintiff
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons
set forth below, this Court dismisses plaintiffs Complaint
Court must dismiss an action initiated by a prisoner seeking
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee, if
the Court determines that the action (i) is frivolous or
malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant
who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2)(B) and l9l5A(b).
order to state a claim, a plaintiff must allege facts which,
when accepted as true, give rise to a plausible inference
that the defendants violated the plaintiffs constitutional
rights. Ashcroft v. Iqbal 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009);
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556-57
(2007). 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. Iqbal 556 U.S. at 678; Moss
v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009).
"A pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (internal
quotations omitted). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se,
and therefore this Court construes the pleadings liberally
and affords plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. Erickson
v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
complains that defendants violated his right of access to the
courts with respect to his "active lawsuit filed
6:19-cv-00026-JR." Pl.'s Compl. at 3. In his first
claim for relief, plaintiff alleges that defendants denied
him photocopies because he "reached a $15 copy
limit," and asserts that his "lawsuit is at risk of
being dismissed [due] to Pus] inability to obtain
copies." Id., In his second claim for relief,
plaintiff alleges that defendants denied him "legal
postage and paper for [his] lawsuit" needed to
"communicate with courts and . . . lawyers."
Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff complains that defendants have
forced him to use his "personal postage and paper"
for his "active lawsuit," and that he must sell
food from his lunch and dinner trays to buy postage and
paper. Id. at 4-5.
is indisputable that indigent inmates must be provided at
state expense with paper and pen to draft legal documents . .
. and with stamps to mail them." Bounds V.
Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 824-25 (1977); King v.
Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 568 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled
on other grounds, Lacey v. Maricopa Cty, 693
F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012). A prisoner's claim that he
has been denied adequate legal resources requires the
prisoner to allege facts to support a reasonable inference
that he suffered an actual or imminent injury to court
.access in an existing or contemplated action. Lewis v.
Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-51, 355 (1996); Penton v.
Pool, 724 F.' App'x 546, 548-50 (9th Cir. 2018);
Ross v. Franke, No. 2:18-cv-00240-YY, 2018 WL
1125587, at *2 (D. Or. Feb. 26, 2018); McKenzie v.
Rossi-Hill No. 3:07-cv-01752-AC, 2009 WL 4891955, at
*8-9 (D. Or. Dec. 16, 2009), affd, 459 Fed.Appx. 661, 662
(9th Cir. 2011).
instant proceeding, plaintiff does not allege facts giving
rise to a reasonable inference that he suffered an actual
injury to court access as a result of the limitations placed
on indigent paper, photocopies, and postage. Further, this
Court takes judicial notice that plaintiff has not missed any
deadlines in Lee v. Lincoln Cty. Corr. Facility,
6:19-cv-00028-JR, he has filed multiple motions in the case,
he recently filed an Amended Complaint, and on April 23,
2019, the Court granted his request for the appointment
of pro bono counsel. Accordingly, this Court
concludes that plaintiff has failed to state a claim due to
the absence of any facts giving rise to a reasonable
inference that plaintiff has suffered an actual or imminent
injury to court access.
on the foregoing, this Court dismisses plaintiffs Complaint
(ECF No. 1) for failure to state a claim.
may file an amended complaint, within thirty days of the date
of this Order, curing the deficiency noted above. If
plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, the ...