United States District Court, D. Oregon
ORDER TO DISMISS
A. Hernandez Chief United States District Judge
an inmate at the Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution,
brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Pursuant to an Order entered this date, the Court
granted plaintiffs Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis. However, for the reasons set forth below, the
Court dismisses plaintiffs Complaint.
alleges three claims for relief. In his first claim,
plaintiff alleges that because he failed to follow a
"discretionary order" from defendant Bolles he was
fired from his position as a law library assistant, and that
all of his personal legal documents and documents of other
inmates were confiscated. Plaintiff alleges this violated his
right of access to the courts and was done in retaliation.
Other than the reference to his alleged failure to follow
defendant Bolles's rules, plaintiff does not allege
personal involvement by any of the other named defendants.
second claim alleges his right of access to the courts was
denied when he was prohibited from using the prison law
library and his legal documents were confiscated. Plaintiff
alleges that defendants Bolles and Rangel hindered his access
to the law library and courts under the direction of
defendants LeGore and Washburn.
third claim, plaintiff alleges violation of his First and
Fourteenth Amendment rights by the failure to comply with
Oregon Department of Corrections rules and prosecution of a
disciplinary proceeding against him without investigation or
due process. Plaintiff also alleges discrimination because
the law library does not provide Spanish-speaking legal
assistants. Plaintiff does not allege which defendants were
personally involved in the disciplinary proceedings against
him or in the alleged discrimination.
of remedy, plaintiff seeks injunctive relief requiring the
return of his personal and his "client" legal
documents and files, reinstatement to the law library
assistant position, expungement of disciplinary proceedings,
and money damages.
district 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. See 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & l9l5A(b). When a
plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court must
construe the pleadings liberally and afford the plaintiff the
benefit of any doubt. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 94 (2007). Moreover, before dismissing apro se
civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim, the
court supplies the plaintiff with a statement of the
complaint's deficiencies. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles
Police Dept, 839 F.2d 621, 623-24 (9th Cir. 1988);
Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir.
1987). A pro se litigant will be given leave to
amend his or her complaint unless it is clear that the
deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured by amendment.
Karim-Panahi, 839 F.2d at 623; Lopez v.
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000).
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege two essential elements: (1) that a right 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 the color of state law. West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Naffe v. Frye, 789 F.3d
1030, 1035-36 (9th Cir. 2015). In order to state a §
1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege facts giving rise to a
reasonable inference that the named defendants were
personally involved in the alleged constitutional violation.
Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989).
Here, plaintiffs first and third claims for relief fail to
allege facts giving rise to a reasonable inference that any
of the named defendants were personally involved in the
alleged violation of his rights; other than the allegation in
his first claim that he did not follow an order from
defendant Bolles, plaintiff does not allege who was
personally involved in the decision to fire him, to
confiscate his legal documents, to prosecute a disciplinary
proceeding against him, or to discriminate against
addition, as to plaintiffs first claim that he was fired from
his law library assistant position, prison inmates do not
have a constitutionally protected right to prison employment,
and plaintiff therefore has no protected liberty interest in
any particular job position in prison. Walker v.
Gomez, 370 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (the Due
Process Clause "does not create a property or liberty
interest in prison employment"). Moreover, plaintiff
does not allege facts establishing a claim that his firing
was the result of improper retaliation. See Rhodes v.
Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-58 (9th Cir. 2005) (to state
a viable constitutional claim for retaliation, a plaintiff
must allege that a defendant acting under color of state law
took adverse action against him because he engaged in
protected conduct, that the adverse action was not narrowly
tailored to advance legitimate correctional goals, and that
the adverse action chilled the plaintiffs exercise of his
First Amendment rights or caused the prisoner to suffer more
than minimal harm).
extent plaintiff alleges in his first and second claims that
he was denied access to the courts and/or the law library,
plaintiff does not allege facts establishing that he suffered
any actual injury as a result thereof. See Lewis v.
Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348 (1996) (in order to allege a
violation of the right of access to the courts, an inmate
must demonstrate that he suffered an actual injury by
pleading facts showing "actual prejudice with respect to
contemplated or existing [non-frivolous] litigation, such as
the inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a
claim," and the actual injury requirement is only
satisfied if an inmate is denied access with regard to direct
criminal appeals, habeas corpus petitions, and civil actions
brought pursuant to § 1983).
extent plaintiff attempts in his third claim to challenge a
prison disciplinary proceeding against him, plaintiff does
not allege facts establishing a violation of his due process
rights. See Serrano v. Francis,345 F.3d 1071, 1077
(9th Cir. 2003) (procedural protections afforded a prisoner
in prison disciplinary proceedings under Wolff v.
McDonnell,418U.S.539, 5 64-71(1974) "adhere only
when the disciplinary action implicates a protected liberty
interest in some 'unexpected matter' or imposes an
'atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in
relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life"')
(quoting Sandin v. Conner,515 U.S. 472, 484
(1995)). Plaintiff does not ...