Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Harvey v. Burris

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division

January 13, 2015

JAMES HARVEY, aka ABDUL SHAKUR, Plaintiff,
v.
S. BURRIS, et al., Defendants.

ORDER OF SERVICE; ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH MOTION; INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK

RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

This federal civil rights action was filed by a pro se state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint is now before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Having concluded that the complaint (Docket No. 1) states one cognizable claim, defendants are directed to file a dispositive motion or notice regarding such motion on or before April 15, 2015, unless an extension is granted. The Court further directs that defendants are to adhere to the notice provisions detailed in Sections 2.a and 10 of the conclusion of this order.

The cognizable claim may be untimely, the underlying events having occurred in 2010. Defendants may wish to consider whether a motion to dismiss on grounds of untimeliness is the most appropriate initial action. If defendants so conclude, they may file such a motion, but they are not required to do so.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 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. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).

A "complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court "is not required to accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged." Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754-55 (9th Cir. 1994). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 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. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims

Plaintiff alleges that (1) in 2010, Pelican Bay Correctional Officers ("PBCO") T.L. Scott, Sergeant Hallock, Lieutenant Thompson, and Lieutenant R.L. Greaves violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by placing him in a contraband cell without cause and issuing a false disciplinary report for failing to comply with the officers' instructions; (2) PBCO K. Morgan and W. Anthony violated his First Amendment rights by confiscating an incoming letter; (3) PBCO Tucker and R. Tupy violated his First Amendment rights by confiscating a letter; (4) Captain Puget violated his First Amendment rights by approving the confiscation of his mail; (5) PBCO J. McPheison violated his First Amendment rights by confiscating his mail; (6) California Department Corrections Director M. Stainer violated his No. C 14-4133 RS (PR) First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by transferring him to administrative segregation without cause; (7) PBCO J. Pieren and D. Barneburg violated his First Amendment rights by confiscating a pamphlet he wrote; (8) PBCO S. Burris and D. Barneburg violated his First Amendment rights by confiscating an outgoing letter; (9) S. Burris and J. Frisk violated his First Amendment rights by confiscating an incoming letter; and (10) S. Burris and B. Patton violated his First Amendment rights by confiscating an outgoing letter. Liberally construed, Claim 1 is cognizable under § 1983.

Claims 2-10 are DISMISSED without prejudice because they are unrelated by fact or law to the first claim. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 19 and 20. If plaintiff wishes to pursue relief for Claims 2-10, he must file a separate civil rights action for each claim.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. The Clerk of the Court shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint in this matter (Docket No. 1), all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon the following correctional officers at Pelican Bay State Prison: T.L. Scott, Sergeant Hallock, Lieutenant Thompson, and Lieutenant R.L. Greaves. The Clerk shall ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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