I. Count I: First Amendment violation through denial of the grievance process against Officer Vasquez and Senior Officer Palalay.
Plaintiff alleges First Amendment violations through denial of the grievance process against Officer Vasquez and Senior Officer Palalay. Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343,346 (1996). A prisoner must establish that they suffered an actual injury as a result of the denial to the courts. Id. Prisoners have a right to the grievance process, same as the court process. See Bradley v. Hall, …show more content…
Prisoners have a First Amendment right to both sending and receiving mail. Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 413 (1989); Witherow v. Paff, 52 F3d 264, 265 (9th Cir. 1995). Prison regulations concerning outgoing prisoner mail may need to further “important or substantial governmental interest[s] unrelated to the suppression of expression,” Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 413 (1974), limited by Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 413-14. Prison officials may justifiably censor outgoing mail concerning escape plans, containing information about proposed criminal activity, or transmitting encoded messages. Procunier, 416 U.S. at 413. Prison officials may also visually inspect outgoing mail to determine whether it contains contraband material that threatens prison security or material threatening the safety of the recipient. Witherow, 52 F.3d at 266; Royse v. Superior Court, 779 F.2d 573, 574-75 (9th Cir. …show more content…
Compl. at 6. Plaintiff further alleges that Caseworker Barrett returned the letter and falsely accused Plaintiff of reusing a postal stamp. Id. However, Barrett does not remember this interaction, and as with all claims, there is no date for reference. Only one showing of mail violation needs to happen for there to be a constitutional claim. Therefore, if Plaintiff can show that at least one instance of his mail not being allowed, without cause, then his claim has sustainable merit. Nonetheless, Plaintiff has offered no evidence to support this claim and without such evidence his mail violation claim has no merit. More discovery is needed to show the full extent of this claim and its