Free Order Dismissing Case - District Court of California - California

Case 5:07-cv-02877-JW

Document 4

Filed 07/27/2007

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

WILLIE WEAVER, Plaintiff, vs. RICH CREEK, Defendant.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. C 07-02877 JW (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner and frequent litigant in this Court, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Docket No. 3)

DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable
Order of Dismissal N:\Pro - Se\7.27.2007\07-02877 Weaver2877_dismissal.wpd

Case 5:07-cv-02877-JW

Document 4

Filed 07/27/2007

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint "is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted," or "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). To 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). B. Legal Claims Plaintiff claims that defendant Correctional Officer Rich Creek violated his rights to assist other inmates when Officer Creek confiscated confidential legal mail which plaintiff was holding for another inmate. Plaintiff cites California code regulations in support of this alleged right to assist other inmates. Plaintiff concludes that defendant's action constitutes a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. In its prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment," the Eighth Amendment places restraints on prison officials, who may not, for example, use excessive force against prisoners. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992). The Amendment also imposes duties on these officials, who must provide all prisoners with the basic necessities of life such as food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care and personal safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994); DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep't of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 199-200 (1989)). A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment when two requirements are met: (1) the deprivation alleged must be, objectively, sufficiently serious, see
Order of Dismissal N:\Pro - Se\7.27.2007\07-02877 Weaver2877_dismissal.wpd

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2

Case 5:07-cv-02877-JW

Document 4

Filed 07/27/2007

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)), and (2) the prison official possesses a sufficiently culpable state of mind, see id. (citing Wilson, 501 U.S. at 297). Plaintiff's claim is without merit. It can hardly be said that the confiscation of mail, much less someone else's mail, is a deprivation of a basic necessity of life such as food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care and personal safety to constitute an Eighth Amendment violation. The confiscation of legal mail, particularly that of another inmate, is not objectively, sufficiently serious. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. Since plaintiff has failed to meet the first requirement, it is not necessary to inquire into defendant's state of mind when he allegedly confiscated the mail. Id. Even if plaintiff's claim is liberally construed as a taking of legal mail to deprive plaintiff of his right of access to courts, see Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996), it would still fail. Any such claim lies solely with the inmate to whom the mail actually belonged. Plaintiff does not have standing to complain about the deprivations of the constitutional rights of others. See Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 410 (1991). Accordingly, this complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, this claim is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The clerk shall terminate all pending motions as moot. No fee is due.

DATED:

July 25, 2007 JAMES WARE United States District Judge

Order of Dismissal N:\Pro - Se\7.27.2007\07-02877 Weaver2877_dismissal.wpd

3