Jenkins v. Bloom
- William Alsup
- 3:19-cv-05762
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Jenkins v. Bloom: Judge Alsup dismissed Jenkins’s civil-rights complaint because the dates defeated retaliation and the grievance-processing allegations stated no claim.
Robert Lee Jenkins, Jr.’s case was dismissed, affecting his claims against Ted Bloom, S. Campaigne, K. Thompson, D. Chamberlain, and K. Hoffman. The court did not allow amendment.
What happened
In Robert Lee Jenkins, Jr. v. Ted Bloom, Jenkins, a California state prisoner representing himself, sued officials under a federal civil-rights law. He claimed that Ted Bloom falsified disciplinary charges to punish him for filing a prison grievance, and that other defendants helped conceal Bloom’s actions.
The court found that Bloom filed the disciplinary charges on April 3, 2019, before Jenkins filed the grievance on April 11, 2109. Because Bloom could not have retaliated for an action that had not yet occurred, the court found no valid retaliation claim. It also ruled that Jenkins could not base a claim on the other defendants’ handling of his grievance because prisoners have no constitutional right to a prison grievance or appeal system.
Judge Alsup dismissed the case for failure to state a claim, directed the clerk to enter judgment and close the file, and did not allow Jenkins to amend because amendment would be futile.
The detailed version
- Jenkins v. Bloom · No. 3:19-cv-05762
- William Alsup
- Nov. 14, 2019
Background
Robert Lee Jenkins, Jr., a California state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Ted Bloom, S. Campaigne, K. Thompson, D. Chamberlain, and K. Hoffman. The opinion states that the defendants were officials at the California Training Facility. Jenkins alleged that Bloom falsified disciplinary charges against him in retaliation for an administrative grievance. He alleged that the other defendants acted “in cahoots” with Bloom and covered up the alleged retaliation.
Court’s analysis
The court screened the prisoner complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and applied the requirement that a complaint contain enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. To state a claim under section 1983, Jenkins had to allege both a violation of a federal right and conduct by a person acting under state authority.
The court recognized that a prisoner may have a First Amendment retaliation claim for using prison grievance procedures. But the complaint’s attachments showed that Bloom filed the disciplinary charges on April 3, 2019, while Jenkins filed the grievance on April 11, 2109. The court concluded that Bloom could not have retaliated against Jenkins for conduct that had not yet occurred. The court therefore found no valid retaliation claim against Bloom.
The court also rejected Jenkins’s claims against the other defendants. Those claims depended on the allegation that Bloom had retaliated, which the court found legally insufficient. The court further stated that there is no constitutional right to a prison administrative appeal or grievance system, so the other defendants’ review and partial granting and partial denial of Jenkins’s grievance did not state a claim.
Disposition
The court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Judge William Alsup did not grant leave to amend, finding that amendment would be futile because the complaint and its attachments established that the defendants had not retaliated against Jenkins for exercising his First Amendment rights. The clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the file.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.