Harrison v. Kernan et al

Filing 13

ORDER OF SERVICE. Telephonic Initial Case Management Conference set for 2/28/2017 10:00 AM.. Signed by Judge Nandor J. Vadas on 1/20/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

EUREKA DIVISION

7
8

DAVID SCOTT HARRISON,

Case No. 16-cv-07103-NJV

Plaintiff,
9

ORDER OF SERVICE, ORDER
SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE

v.
10
11

S. KERNAN, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13
14

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant 42 U.S.C. §
1983. The court has denied his opposition to the removal of the action to this court. (Doc. 12.)
DISCUSSION

15
16
17

Standard of Review
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek

18

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §

19

1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims

20

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek

21

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se

22

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th

23

Cir. 1990).

24

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the

25

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the statement

26

need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it

27

rests.’”” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). Although in order to state

28

a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to

1

provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and

2

a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must

3

be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

4

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a

5

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has

6

recently explained the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can

7

provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there

8

are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine

9

whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

(2009).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1)

12

that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the

13

alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins,

14

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

15

Controlling Law

16
17

In this action, Plaintiff alleges that he has been deprived of his right to the equal protection
of the law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

18

In Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987), the Court held that when a prison regulation

19

[or practice] impinges on inmates' constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably

20

related to legitimate penological interests. The Court set out four factors to be considered:

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1) Whether there is a valid, rational connection between the prison regulation and
the legitimate government interest put forward to justify it. A regulation cannot be
sustained where the logical connection between the regulation and the asserted goal is so
remote as to render the policy arbitrary or irrational, and the government objective must be
a legitimate and neutral one.
(2) Whether there are alternative means of exercising the right that remains open. If so,
courts should be particularly conscious of the measure of judicial deference owed to
corrections officials.
(3) What impact the accommodation of the asserted right will have on guards, other
inmates and the allocation of prison resources generally. If the accommodation will have a
significant ripple effect the courts should be particularly deferential to the informed
discretion of correctional officials.
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

(4) If there is an absence of ready alternatives, this is evidence of the reasonableness of a
prison regulation.
Id. at 89-91.
Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are state actors and that they have discriminated
against him based on gender. Specifically, he alleges that Defendants have imposed personal
property requirements on him that are disparate from those imposed on similarly situated female
inmates of the same, and greater, security risk classifications. He claims equal protection
violations in the decision making process by which the CDCR provides favored treatment to
female inmates as compared with male inmates, for no reason other than gender. The court finds
that Plaintiff's allegations are sufficient to state a colorable claim for a violation of the right to
equal protection of the law under the Eighth Amendment.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

CONCLUSION
The Clerk shall issue a summons and the United States Marshal shall serve the summons,
copies of the complaint with attachments and copies of this order on the named Defendants or
their successors.
All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must be served on Defendants, or
Defendants’ counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to
Defendants or Defendants' counsel.
Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No
further Court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) is required before the parties
may conduct discovery.
It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court informed

22

of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of Change of

23

Address.” He also must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may

24
25
26
27

result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b).
A telephonic case management conference is HEREBY SET for 10:00 a.m. on
February 28, 2017. The parties shall attend the case management conference by dialing 888-

28
3

1

684-8852 and entering access code 1868782. The parties shall be prepared to set dates for

2

discovery, dispositive motions, and trial. The court will mail a copy of the Handbook for Pro

3

Se Litigants to Plaintiff, along with a copy of the standing order regarding case management

4

statements. The parties shall file individual case management statements no later than

5

February 21, 2017.

6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 20, 2017
______________________________________
NANDOR J. VADAS
United States Magistrate Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4