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.

Hamiltonhausey v. Lewis

United States District Court, N.D. California

July 18, 2017

JERRY HAMILTONHAUSEY, Plaintiff,
v.
JILL R. LEWIS, Defendants.

          SCHEDULING ORDER

          WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”), filed this civil rights action in state court against Jill Lewis, a correctional officer at SQSP. Plaintiff was granted leave to amend, and he has filed a timely amended complaint.

         ANALYSIS

         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). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims which 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." "Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although in order to state a claim 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 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 1974.

         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 deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

         B. Legal Claims

         There are four different pleadings on the docket that are called “amended complaint” (ECF Nos. 25, 29-31). Docket number 30 is the most complete and encompasses the allegations included in the others. Therefore, docket number 30 is construed as the operative amended complaint. It is noted that docket number 30 bears the wrong case number, but the caption and contents make it clear that the pleading is part of this case. Therefore, the Clerk shall change the case number in the caption of docket number 30 to this case's case number (C No. C 17-1180 WHA (Pr)).

         Plaintiff's allegations that defendant fired him from his prison job based upon racial and gender bias, when liberally construed, sufficiently state a cognizable claim for the violation of his constitutional right to equal protection of the laws. See Walker v. Gomez, 370 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004).

         CONCLUSION

         For the reasons set out above, it is hereby ordered as follows:

1. Defendant shall file an answer in accordance with the Federal Rules of ...

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.