Opinion
No. C 03-2911 WHA (PR)
August 4, 2003
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Alameda County Jail, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has paid the filing fee. Venue is proper in this district because the defendants reside, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the action occurred, in this district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b).
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). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims which 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. Id. at 1915A(b)(1), (2). 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 deprivation 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 contends that he received "legal mail" from the Superior Court of California which was open when he got it. There was a notation on the envelope which said "LEGAL MAIL: MUST BE OPENED IN PRESENCE OF INMATE." Plaintiff contends that his rights were violated when the envelope was opened outside his presence. He states that jail officials apologized for opening the mail and said that it was an accident.
The stamp on the envelope saying that it must be opened in the presence of the inmate does not define plaintiff's constitutional rights. Although the envelope carried that notation, mail from the courts, as contrasted to mail from a prisoner's lawyer, is not "legal mail." Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1094 (9th Cir. 1996), amended, 135 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 1998). This is because with minute exceptions correspondence from a court to a litigant is a public document. Martin v. Brewer, 830 F.2d 76, 78 (7th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff has thus failed to state a claim. Because there is no way a claim based on opening mail from a court outside the presence of the prisoner could be amended to state a claim, the dismissal will be without leave to amend.
In addition, plaintiff alleges only this single incident. Isolated instances of mishandling mail do not violate the Constitution. Sizemore v. Williford, 829 F.2d 608, 610 (7th Cir. 1987) (allegations of isolated delay or some other relatively short-term, non-content-based disruption in delivery of inmate mail not enough to state 1st Amendment claim); Bach v. Illinois, 504 F.2d 1100, 1102 (7th Cir.) (isolated incident of mail mishandling insufficient to state claim under 1st Amendment), cert. denied, 418 U.S. 910 (1974); Lingo v. Boone, 402 F. Supp. 768, 773 (N.D.Cal. 1975).
CONCLUSION
This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. The clerk shall close the file.IT IS SO ORDERED.