Skip navigation
× You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.

Indigent Mental Patients Court Access Rights Upheld

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that indigent mental
patients have the same right to access of courts, as do indigent prisoners
filing pro se. The basis for this class action civil rights suit was the
patients were allowed only three first class postage stamps per week. This
limitation interfered with their access to the courts. The patients argued
they found it necessary to communicate with courts more than three times
per week, and that pleadings often needed more than one stamp. The Court
held that the patient's constitutional right to meaningful access was
violated, and the State of Oregon must provide postage stamps at its
expense to file legal documents. See: King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565 (9th
Cir. 1987).

As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal case

King & Norman v. Atlych

King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565 (9th Cir. 04/08/1987)

[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

[2] No. 85-4174

[3] 814 F.2d 565, 1987

[4] filed*fn*: April 8, 1987.

[5] KIM KING AND KENT NORMAN, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
VICTOR ATIYEH, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES

[6] Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, D.C. No. CV-84-1159-FR, Helen J. Frye, District Judge, Presiding.

[7] Kent Norman, for the Plaintiffs-Appellants.

[8] David Schuman, for Defendants-Appellees.

[9] Thomas Tang, Warren J. Ferguson and Cynthia Holcomb Hall, Circuit Judges.

[10] Author: Hall

[11] HALL, Circuit Judge:

[12] Kim King (King) and Kent Norman (Norman) appeal pro se the district court's dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 class action against the Governor of Oregon, the Attorney General of Oregon, and the Superintendent of the Oregon State Hospital. They contend that the district court erred in ignoring their original complaint after they filed an amended complaint, in dismissing their action against the governor and the attorney general for failure to sue the proper defendant, and in dismissing their action against the superintendent for failure to state a claim. This court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

[13] I

[14] King and Norman were found guilty except for insanity of certain crimes. They were placed under the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board and sent to the Oregon State Hospital for care, custody, and treatment. In their original complaint, King and Norman alleged that the lack of a law library, the censorship of certain television programming, and other restrictions violated the fifth, sixth, eighth, and fourteenth amendments. They later filed an amended complaint alleging that institutional restrictions on mailing privileges denied them access to the courts, in violation of both the first and fourteenth amendments.*fn1 The amended complaint did not incorporate either explicitly or by reference the allegations of the original complaint.

[15] On May 14, 1985, the district court dismissed the action as to the governor and the attorney general. On May 15, 1985, the court ruled that the amended complaint superseded the original complaint. On September 11, 1985, the court dismissed the action against the superintendent for failure to state a claim. King and Norman now appeal these rulings.

[16] II

[17] We review a dismissal for failure to state a claim de novo. In re Financial Corp. of America Shareholder Litigation, 796 F.2d 1126, 1127 (9th Cir. 1986). To uphold such a dismissal, it must appear to a certainty that the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any set of facts that could be proved. Id. at 1128. In civil rights cases, where the plaintiff is pro se, we have an obligation to construe the pleadings liberally and to afford the plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. Bretz v. Kelman,773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc); see also Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652, 92 S. Ct. 594 (1972) (per curiam).

[18] III

[19] King and Norman contend that the district court erred in holding that their amended complaint superseded their original complaint. This contention is meritless. All causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived. London v. Coopers & Lybrand,644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981). Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants. United States v. Merrill,746 F.2d 458, 465 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1165, 83 L. Ed. 2d 938, 105 S. Ct. 926 (1985).

[20] IV

[21] King and Norman also contend that the district court erred in dismissing their complaint as to the governor and the attorney general. State officials are not subject to suit under section 1983 unless they play an affirmative part in the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights. Rizzo v. Goode,423 U.S. 362, 377, 46 L. Ed. 2d 561, 96 S. Ct. 598 (1976). In this case, the amended complaint is barren of any allegations that the governor or the attorney general knew of, or took part in, any constitutional deprivations. Therefore, the district court properly dismissed the action as to the governor and the attorney general.