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)

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