Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Haynes v. Sisto

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION


February 24, 2009

ROBERT HAYNES,
v.
D.K. SISTO, T. SEQUIRA, JOHN DOES 1-100.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Susan P. Graber United States Circuit Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner who is proceeding pro se. He seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is the complaint, filed September 16, 2008.

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners who seek relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff alleges that prison officials at California State Prison Solano have violated his constitutional rights by discriminating against him because of his ethnicity. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that D.K. Sisto, the prison warden, signed an order placing all African-American inmates on lockdown status after "the whole black inmate population" allegedly refused to meet with Latino inmates to resolve ongoing differences between the two groups. According to Plaintiff, Facility #1 Captain T. Sequira physically placed him and other African-American inmates on lockdown status upon Warden Sisto's order. Plaintiff alleges that Latino inmates, who were also placed on lockdown status, were allowed to return to the normal routine more quickly than the African-American inmates. Plaintiff contends that, after every isolated incident occurring between the two ethnic groups, Warden Sisto and Captain Sequira kept the African-American inmates on lockdown status for a longer duration than they did the Latino inmates.

Plaintiff's claim appears to state a cognizable claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. If the allegations of the complaint are proved, Plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action.

The court, therefore, finds that service is appropriate and will direct service by the U.S. Marshal without prepayment of costs. However, the court will not order service on defendants John Does 1-100 unless Plaintiff amends the complaint to allege that specific, identifiable persons have engaged in particular acts that violated his constitutional rights.

Plaintiff is informed that this action cannot proceed further until Plaintiff complies with this order. Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of the action. See Local Rule 11-110.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Service of the complaint is appropriate for defendants Sisto and Sequira.

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff two USM-285 forms, one summons, an instruction sheet, and a copy of the complaint filed September 16, 2008.

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, Plaintiff shall complete the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit all of the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. Two completed USM-285 forms;

d. Three copies of the endorsed complaint filed September 16, 2008.

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's order filed completed summons form completed USM-285 forms copies of the Complaint/Amended Complaint DATED: Plaintiff

20090224

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.