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.

Russell v. Davis

United States District Court, N.D. California

March 30, 2018

ROBERT A. RUSSELL, Plaintiff,
v.
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.

         INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff 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.

         Plaintiff 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.

         Defendants 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.

         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, 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).

         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, 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).

         B. Legal Claims

         Plaintiff 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.

         MOTION

         Plaintiff 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 ...


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.