United States District Court, D. Oregon
ORDER TO DISMISS
A. Hernandez Chief United States District Judge
an inmate at the Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution
("EOCI"), brings this civil rights action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to an Order entered this
date, the Court granted plaintiff s Application to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis. However, for the reasons set
forth below, the Court dismisses plaintiffs Complaint.
Complaint alleges three claims for relief. In his first
claim, plaintiff alleges his rights were violated in
connection with a disciplinary proceeding. Plaintiff does not
identify the factual basis underlying the disciplinary
proceeding, nor does he identify the sanction received.
Plaintiff alleges he was not given fair notice of what
conduct was prohibited and that EOCI officials failed to
comply with Department of Corrections procedures. Plaintiffs
second claim alleges law library coordinators, supervisors,
and executives conspired to deprive plaintiff of his rights
in order to reduce or stop the filing of cases with the
courts on behalf of inmates who lacked the necessary means,
understanding, education, and language skills. Plaintiffs
third claim alleges that disciplinary hearings officers
"fully support 100% the reports with already made
decisions on the violations alleged without any proof or
evidence of any wrong doing," and that hearings officers
"have many times vouched for the law library
coordinators since they are friends for many years and their
supervisors sign off on their reports for disciplinary
attachments to his Complaint, plaintiff includes a narrative
statement and other documents which appear to indicate that
the claims in the current Complaint arise from the same facts
which underlie claims alleged by plaintiff in Reyes v.
Washburn, No. 2:19-cv-01562-AC. By way of remedy here,
plaintiff seeks to have all disciplinary findings expunged
from his personal record and reinstatement of his prior
custody status, as well as money damages. Plaintiff also
seeks an investigation of disciplinary actions by the law
library coordinators and their supervisors against other
inmates and imposition of a requirement that a
Spanish-speaking and trained legal assistant be provided to
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 a, pro 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). Apro 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, none of plaintiff s claims for relief allege facts
giving rise to a reasonable inference that any of the named
defendants were personally involved in the alleged violation
of his rights; plaintiff does not allege which defendant was
personally involved in any of the actions complained of.
extent plaintiffs first claim alleges his rights were
violated in connection with the disciplinary proceeding,
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 aprisoner in prison disciplinary proceedings under
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564-71 (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
allege any facts supporting a claim that the result of the
disciplinary proceeding imposed an atypical and significant
hardship such that his due process rights were implicated.
second and third claims do not allege he suffered any injury.
To the extent plaintiff claims prison officials conspired to
prevent other inmates from filing lawsuits and to improperly
discipline other inmates, plaintiff appears to lack standing
to pursue such claims. See, e.g., Lewis v. Casey,
518 U.S. 343, 349 (1996) (doctrine of standing requires that
claimant have suffered or will imminently suffer actual
harm); Caswell v. Calderon, 363 F.3d 832, 836 (9th
Cir. 2004) (case-or-controversy requirement means that
plaintiff must have an actual or threatened injury traceable
to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable
to the extent plaintiffs claims in this action arise out of
the same nucleus of facts underlying the claims alleged in
Reyes v. Washburn, No. 2:19-cv-01562-AC, plaintiff
has no right to have two cases pending based on the identical
facts. See Tripati v. First Nat 7 Bank &
Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissing
as frivolous claim arising out of the same series of events
and alleging the same facts as another pending action);
see also Boag v. McDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 n.l
(1982) (§ 1915(d) gives district court broad discretion
to take judicial notice of previously filed civil rights
actions); Hernandez v. Denton, 861 F.2d 1421, 1425
(9th Cir. 1988), rev'd on other grounds, 112
S.Ct. 369 (1992) (in forma pauperis plaintiff has no
right to bring repetitive or duplicative claims).
on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs Complaint.
Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint, curing the
deficiencies noted above, within 30 days of the date of this
order. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file an Amended