Roberts v. San Francisco Co. et al

Filing 6

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 12/2/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/6/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 TYE ROBERTS, Plaintiff(s), 10 vs. 11 12 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY, et al., Defendant(s). 13 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. C 11-5390 CRB (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL 14 15 Plaintiff, a prisoner at the San Francisco County Jail, has filed a pro se 16 complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that he was unfairly ordered to his 17 "room without privileges for two days." He wants the responsible deputy/nurse 18 reprimanded and transferred to another floor. DISCUSSION 19 20 21 A. Standard of Review Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which 22 prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 23 governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable 24 claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint 25 "is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 26 granted," or "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 27 relief." Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri 28 v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 1 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two 2 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States 3 was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting 4 under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 5 B. Legal Claims 6 Although the Constitution protects pretrial detainees against punishment 7 unrelated to maintaining jail security and order, and convicted prisoners against 8 cruel and unusual punishment, this does not mean that federal courts can or 9 should interfere whenever pretrial detainees or convicted prisoners are 10 inconvenienced or suffer de minimis injuries. See, e.g., Anderson v. County of 11 Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1314-15 (9th Cir.) (temporary placement in safety cell that 12 was dirty and smelled bad did not state claim under § 1983), amended, 75 F.3d 13 448 (9th Cir. 1995). Plaintiff's alleged suspension of "privileges" for two days 14 does not amount to more than a temporary inconvenience or de minimis injury. 15 This court will heed the Ninth Circuit's admonition that federal courts should 16 avoid enmeshing themselves in the minutiae of prison operations and dismiss 17 plaintiff's action for failure to state a claim of constitutional magnitude. See 18 Wright v. Rushen, 642 F.2d 1129, 1132 (9th Cir. 1981). 19 20 21 22 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state claim under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this order, terminate all 23 pending motions as moot, and close the file. 24 SO ORDERED. 25 DATED: 26 Dec. 2, 2011 CHARLES R. BREYER United States District Judge G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.11\Roberts, T.11-5390.dismissal.wpd 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?