Harrell v. Garcia

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ESHAWN MAURICE HARRELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
G. GARCIA,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-cv-07435-NW
ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT,
DISMISSING WITH LEAVE TO
AMEND
Plaintiff Eshawn Maurice Harrell, a state detainee, filed a pro se civil rights complaint
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See ECF No. 1. The Complaint is now before the Court for screening
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). For the reasons set forth below, the Court DISMISSES the
Complaint with leave to amend.
I. BACKGROUND
Harrell alleges that Correctional Officer G. Garcia “negligently mailed [Harrell’s]
paperwork to ‘unknown’ sources” and misplaced Harrell’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis for a case he filed against Ryan Martin. ECF No. 1 at 1. He also alleges that “they . . .
‘misplaced’” his writ of habeas corpus and certificate of appealability, but does not identify the
responsible parties. Id. In addition, Harrell states that Garcia verbally accused him of flushing a
plastic bag and a brush down the toilet despite Harrell explaining that the bag got stuck by
accident. Harrell seeks monetary damages.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal courts conduct a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress
from a governmental entity, an officer, or an 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
Case 5:25-cv-07435-NW Document 7 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 4

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
that 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).
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.” Although 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 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted).
A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id.
at 570. The United States Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face” standard of
Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be
supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should
assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to
relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was
committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
III. DISCUSSION
Liberally construing the Complaint, Harrell’s claim appears to allege interference with his
access to the courts. However, he fails to state a cognizable constitutional claim. Prisoners have a
constitutional right of access to the courts. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996). To
establish a claim for a violation of the right of access to the courts, the prisoner must show that
there was an inadequacy in the prison’s legal access program that caused him an actual injury, i.e.,
that the inadequacy hindered him in presenting a non-frivolous claim concerning his conviction or
conditions of confinement. See id. at 350–55. Examples of impermissible hindrances include: a
Case 5:25-cv-07435-NW Document 7 Filed 02/20/26 Page 2 of 4

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
prisoner whose complaint was dismissed for failure to satisfy a technical requirement that, because
of deficiencies in the prison’s legal assistance facilities, he could not have known; or, a prisoner
who had “suffered arguably actionable harm” that he wished to bring to the attention of the court,
but was so stymied by the inadequacies of the prison’s services that he was unable to file a
complaint. See id. at 351. A delay in filing a legal document without any attendant adverse
consequences does not constitute actual harm. Vigliotto v. Terry, 873 F.2d 1201, 1202 (9th Cir.
1989).
To the extent Harrell alleges Garcia was negligent in mailing his documents, it is well-
established that negligence in handling a prisoner’s legal mail does not constitute a due process
violation and is not actionable under § 1983. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S 327, 333 (1986); Hines
v. Boothe, 841 F.2d 623, 624 (5th Cir. 1988) (“Negligence does not state a claim under
section 1983 and the facts alleged by [plaintiff] with regard to the loss of his legal mail do not
constitute more than negligence.”) (emphasis in original), overruled on other grounds in Huguet v.
Barnett, 900 F.2d 838 (5th Cir. 1990); Strong v. Woodford, 428 F. Supp. 2d 1082, 1086 (C.D. Cal.
2006) (same). Additionally, Harrell does not provide sufficient information about his legal filings
to show, or otherwise allege, that he was unable to raise non-frivolous legal claims or suffered any
actual injury as a result of Garcia’s alleged mishandling of his legal documents—whether
negligent or intentional. The claim is therefore DISMISSED. The Court grants leave to amend
so Harrell may, if applicable based on the circumstances, address the deficiencies identified above.
Insofar as Harrell alleges that Garcia verbally accused him of intentionally clogging his
toilet, Harrell fails to state a cognizable claim because allegations of verbal harassment do not
amount to a constitutional violation. Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 738 (9th Cir. 1997),
overruled in part on other grounds by Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 884–85 (9th Cir. 2008).
The claim is DISMISSED. Because amendment of this claim would be futile, the dismissal is
without leave to amend. See Wheeler v. City of Santa Clara, 894 F.3d 1046, 1059 (9th Cir. 2018)
(“Leave to amend may be denied if the proposed amendment is futile or would be subject to
dismissal.”).
Case 5:25-cv-07435-NW Document 7 Filed 02/20/26 Page 3 of 4

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
IV. CONCLUSION
The Court orders as follows:
1. The Complaint is DISMISSED as specified above.
2. The Court grants LEAVE TO AMEND as to Harrell’s claim of interference with
the courts.
3. Any amended complaint must be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date
this order is filed and must include the caption and civil case number used in this
order and the words “Amended Complaint” on the first page. Because an amended
complaint completely replaces the original, Harrell must include all allegations of
fact to support his claim. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.
1992). Harrell is cautioned that he may not incorporate material from the prior
petition by reference. Failure to amend within the designated time will result in
this action’s dismissal without prejudice.
4. It is Harrell’s responsibility to prosecute this case. He must keep the Court
informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the Clerk headed
“Notice of Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court’s orders in a
timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure
to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
5. The Clerk is requested to send a blank prisoner civil rights form to Harrell, along
with a copy of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 20, 2026
Noël Wise
United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-07435-NW Document 7 Filed 02/20/26 Page 4 of 4