Opinion
No. C 02-3624 MMC (PR)
November 4, 2002
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff Carl Lee Callegari, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison ("SVSP"), filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint was dismissed with leave to amend because it failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. Plaintiff has timely amended his complaint.
DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
B. Legal Claims
Plaintiff claims that defendants C. Favernetti ("Favernetti"), Don Chesterman ("Chesterman"), and Vermonic E. Rios ("Rios") denied him access to the courts. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that he had a court-imposed deadline to send mail to the Attorney General in a prior case, but defendant Favernetti, who worked in the SVSP mail room, refused to send the mail. Plaintiff further alleges that defendant McDonald, the SVSP law librarian, kicked plaintiff out of the law library. Finally, plaintiff alleges that defendants Chesterman and Rios, supervisors of Favernetti and McDonald, knew about and failed to stop the above-described conduct.
Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996);Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). To establish a claim for any violation of the right of access to the courts, the prisoner must prove that there was an madequacy in the prison's legal access program that caused him an actual injury. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 350-55. To prove an actual injury, the prisoner must show that the inadequacy in the prison's program hindered his efforts to pursue a non-frivolous claim concerning his conviction or conditions of confinement.See id. at 354-55. Once the prisoner establishes a denial of access to the courts, the court should then determine whether the hindrance of the prisoner's access to court was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. See id. at 361 (citing Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987)). If the hindrance is related to legitimate penological interests, the denial of access to the courts claim will fail even if there was actual injury.
There are numerous deficiencies with plaintiffs claims. First, the right of access to the court is limited to the initiation of a court action; the state is not required to enable the prisoner to discover grievances or to litigate effectively once in court. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 354. Plaintiff does not allege that the deadline he missed was for filing a complaint or otherwise initiating a court action. Indeed, it appears from his allegation that he was prevented from serving the defense counsel with some papers. Although this may have been required by the court, and therefore necessary to effectively litigate his court action, it does not appear to have been a requirement for initiating the action. The other deficiencies in plaintiffs claims are that he does not allege that the lawsuit he was attempting to pursue involved the fact or conditions of his confinement, see id. at 355; he does not allege that the claims in the lawsuit were nonfrivolous see id. at 352-53 n. 3; and he does not allege any hindrance to his lawsuit beyond "mere delay," see Hudson v. Robinson, 678 F.2d 462, 466 (3d Cir. 1982). Consequently, plaintiffs allegations do not state a cognizable claim for the violation of his right of access to the courts.
Plaintiff also seeks money damages against defendants James Harrison, M.D. ("Dr. Harrison") and Charles Dudley Lee, M.D. ("Dr. Lee") for allegedly failing to provide him with sufficient mental health treatment. Plaintiff alleges that this has caused him "mental stress." "No Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison or other correctional facility for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). This provision applies to claims for money damages. See Zehner v. Trigg, 133 F.3d 459, 461-64 (7th Cir. 1997). Failure to allege and establish an appropriate physical injury is grounds for dismissal. See Zehner v. Trigg, 952 F. Supp. 1318, 1321-35 (S.D. Ind.) (dismissing action for damages because no plaintiff developed physical injury by exposure to asbestos while in prison), affd, 133 F.3d 459 (7th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff does not allege any physical injury arising out of the allegedly insufficient mental health care; he only alleges mental and emotional distress. Section 1997e(e) bars plaintiffs claims for money damages against Drs. Harrison and Lee for mental and emotional distress because the allegations indicate no underlying physical injury.
The Court notes that section 1997e(e) does not bar plaintiff's other claims for damages because they are not premised on mental and emotional injuries; rather they are premised on the injury to another lawsuit. See Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 630 (9th Cir. 2002) (finding § 1997e(e) inapplicable to claims for compensatory damages not premised on mental or emotional injury); cf. Canell v. Lightner, 143 F.3d 1210, 1213 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding § 1997e(e) inapplicable to First Amendment claims for money damages).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief.The clerk shall close the file and terminate all pending motions.
JUDGEMENT IN A CIVIL CASE
[X] Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.