From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Haney v. McGuire

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 1, 2015
No. C 15-1992 WHA (PR) (N.D. Cal. Jun. 1, 2015)

Opinion

No. C 15-1992 WHA (PR)

06-01-2015

MONTE HANEY, Plaintiff, v. FRANK A. McGUIRE; C. WONG; J. HUNTER; I. CALANOE, Defendants.


ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

This is a pro se civil rights complaint filed by a California prisoner proceeding pro se under 42 U.S.C. 1983, against the Clerk and three Deputy Clerks of the California Supreme Court, Frank A. McGUIRE, C. Wong, J. Hunter and I. Calanoe. He claims that defendants improperly failed to file a document accusing an attorney of misconduct. Plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. For the reasons discussed below, the complaint is DISMISSED.

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).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint "does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his 'entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 1974. Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

B. LEGAL CLAIMS

Plaintiff alleges that he sent a document accusing an attorney of misconduct to the California Supreme Court, and he claims that defendants, who are the Clerk of Court and three deputy clerks, violated his constitutional right of access to the courts by refusing to file the document.

Defendants explained to plaintiff that the document could not be filed because plaintiff did not submit "final" correspondence from the State Bar of California indicating that it had not and would not take action against the attorney (Compl. Exs. C, G). In addition, Plaintiff did not submit the required number of copies of the document or proof that they had been served upon the state bar officials, as required under the court rules (Compl. Ex. F). Plaintiff disagrees with defendants' actions because he included a letter from the State Bar declining to proceed against the attorney (Compl. Ex. E). It is clear from the State Bar's letter, however, that, as explained by defendants, it is not the final letter from the State Bar instructing plaintiff that he could proceed to the California Supreme Court (Compl. Exs. E, G). Rather, the letter states that plaintiff could obtain further assistance from or further review by State Bar officials (Compl. Ex. E).

Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996). The right of access to the courts is limited to providing prisoners with the capabilities to attack their convictions or sentences directly or collaterally and to file Section 1983 claims challenging the conditions of their confinement. Id. at 355. "Impairment of any other litigating capacity is simply one of the incidental (and perfectly constitutional) consequences of conviction and incarceration." Ibid. The right of access to the courts does not extend to plaintiff's pursuing a complaint of misconduct by his defense attorney because the complaint is not an attack on his conviction, sentence or conditions of confinement. Plaintiff's allegations, if true, do not amount to a violation of his constitutional rights and therefore do not state a cognizable claim for relief under Section 1983.

Moreover, defendants are immune from plaintiff's damages claims. Individuals performing functions necessary to the judicial process are immune from damages. Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 895-96 (9th Cir. 2003). State actors are granted absolute immunity from damages liability in suits under Section 1983 only for actions taken while performing a duty functionally comparable to tasks performed by judges at common law. Id. at 897. Filing documents that comport with court rules — and refusing documents that do not — are judicial tasks that satisfy the Miller test.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set out above, this action is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief.

The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 1, 2015.

/s/_________

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Haney v. McGuire

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 1, 2015
No. C 15-1992 WHA (PR) (N.D. Cal. Jun. 1, 2015)
Case details for

Haney v. McGuire

Case Details

Full title:MONTE HANEY, Plaintiff, v. FRANK A. McGUIRE; C. WONG; J. HUNTER; I…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jun 1, 2015

Citations

No. C 15-1992 WHA (PR) (N.D. Cal. Jun. 1, 2015)