United States District Court, N.D. California
ROBERT A. RUSSELL, Plaintiff,
RON DAVIS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OF SERVICE; ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE
DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH MOTION; ORDER
DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE A RESPONSE TO TRO MOTION;
INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK
RICHARD SEEBORG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
alleges in this federal civil rights action that his life and
the lives of other inmates are in danger if his jailors force
them to integrate with general population inmates. When
liberally construed, plaintiff has stated claims for relief.
has filed a motion for a temporary restraining order
(“TRO”) and a preliminary injunction. (Dkt. No.
5.) Defendants are ordered to file a response to
plaintiff's request for a TRO and a preliminary
injunction on or before April 20, 2018.
are further directed to file a dispositive motion or notice
regarding such motion relative the claims raised in the
complaint or before June 29, 2018. The Court
further directs that defendants adhere to the notice
provisions detailed in Sections 2.a and 10 of the conclusion
of this order. Plaintiff's motion for counsel will be
addressed in a separate order.
Standard of Review
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, a
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).
“complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (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).
alleges that his jailors at San Quentin plan to integrate him
and 100 other Special Needs Yard (“SNY”) and
Enhanced Outpatient Program (“EOP”) inmates into
the general population. He further alleges that if this
integration takes place, his life and the lives of the other
SNY and EOP inmates are in danger. When liberally construed,
plaintiff has stated a claim for relief under section 1983.
has filed a motion for a TRO and a preliminary injunction.
(Dkt. No. 5.) Defendants are ordered to file a response to
plaintiff's request for a TRO and a ...