United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OR AMEND
W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge.
Ronnie Lee Hicks II, proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. On November 19, 2019, the Court stayed
this case pending Plaintiff's interlocutory appeal to the
Ninth Circuit. Dkt. 22. On November 27, 2019, the Ninth
Circuit granted Plaintiff's Motion for Voluntary
Dismissal of the Appeal. Dkts. 23, 24. On December 2, 2019,
Plaintiff filed a status report indicating he had withdrawn
his appeal. Dkt. 25. Because the Plaintiff has withdrawn his
appeal and the Ninth Circuit has now made a determination on
Plaintiff's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of the Appeal,
the Court now lifts the stay.
reviewed and screened Plaintiff's Complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court finds Plaintiff's
Complaint contains deficiencies such that the Court declines
to serve it at this time, but provides Plaintiff leave to
file an amended complaint by January 16, 2020 to cure the
deficiencies identified herein.
Ronnie Lee Hicks II, Mathew Gant, and Mathew Renguul,
initially filed this Complaint under a single cause of
action. Dkt. 15. Plaintiff Hicks filed the only Application
to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”),
which the Court granted. Dkts. 13, 14. The Court denied
Plaintiff Hicks' Motion for Class Certification (Dkt. 16)
without prejudice and dismissed Plaintiffs Gant and Renguul
from this action. Dkts. 17, 19. The Court now proceeds to
screen the Complaint as it pertains to Plaintiff Hicks
(hereinafter “Plaintiff”), the remaining
Plaintiff in this matter.
the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, the Court is
required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking
relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee
of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
Court must “dismiss the complaint, or any portion of
the complaint, if the complaint: (1) is frivolous, malicious,
or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted;
or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief.” Id. at (b); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2); see Barren v. Harrington, 152
F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 1998).
Complaint was also signed by dismissed Plaintiffs Gant and
Renguul. Dkts. 15, 17, 19. Thus, Plaintiff is ordered to file
an amended complaint addressing only his individual
claims and not claims related to either Mathew Gant or Mathew
alleges Defendants Finely, Winslow, Mastandrea, Slothower,
Alexander, Graham, Carolous, Allen, and Ake violated his
constitutional rights by refusing to provide grievance forms.
Dkt. 15. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Jones denied
Plaintiff's appeal. Dkt. 15.
prisoners do not have a stand-alone due process rights
related to the administrative grievance process. See Mann
v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); Ramirez
v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding
there is no liberty interest entitling prisoners to a
specific grievance process). “Because there is no right
to any particular grievance process, it is impossible for due
process to have been violated by ignoring or failing to
properly process grievances.” Grigsby v.
Hubert, 2009 WL 1861172, *1 (E.D. Cal. June 29, 2009).
Defendants Finely, Winslow, Mastandrea, Slothhower,
Alexander, Graham, Carolous, Allen, Ake, and Jones cannot be
held liable for their actions related to Plaintiff's
requests for grievances. Plaintiff is directed to show cause
why these claims should not be dismissed.
Defendants Allen and ...