United States District Court, N.D. California
October 26, 2005.
DEMETRIUS SCOBELLITTI, Plaintiff(s),
CAPT. R. DYER, et al., Defendant(s).
The opinion of the court was delivered by: CHARLES BREYER, District Judge
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff, a prisoner at the San Francisco County Jail, has
filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging that jail officials refused to believe his claim that
another inmate had assaulted him and instead filed disciplinary
charges against him for making false claims.
Plaintiff also seeks to proceed in forma pauperis under
28 U.S.C. § 1915.
A. Standard of Review
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases
in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss
the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint
"is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted," or "seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief." Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed.
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege two elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution
or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the
alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the
color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
B. Legal Claims
Plaintiff's allegations are DISMISSED under the authority of §
1915A(b) because it is well-established that a prisoner has no
constitutionally guaranteed immunity from being falsely or
wrongly accused of conduct which may result in the deprivation of
a protected liberty interest. See Sprouse v. Babcock,
870 F.2d 450, 452 (8th Cir. 1989); Freeman v. Rideout,
808 F.2d 949, 951 (2d Cir. 1986). Plaintiff's assertion that prison
officials believed another "inmate white boy" and not him does
not compel a different conclusion. See, e.g., More v.
Farrier, 984 F.2d 269, 271-72 (8th Cir. 1993) (absent evidence
of invidious discrimination, federal courts should defer to
judgment of prison officials); Timm v. Gunter, 917 F.2d 1093,
1099 (8th Cir. 1990) (same).
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's request to proceed in
forma pauperis (docs # 2 & 4) is DENIED and the complaint is
DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
The clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this order,
terminate all pending motions as moot, and close the file. No fee
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.