Jackson v. Horel et al

Filing 8

ORDER OF DISMISSAL, ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 4/13/10. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/13/2010)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 vs. Warden BOB HOREL; C. WILK; W. A. DUNCAN; R. PIMENTE; N. GRANNIS; M. FERGUSON; G. STEWART; M. CASTELLA, J. PASCOE; M. PENA; J. ISOLA; and DEPARTMENT OF OCRRECTIONS, Defendants. / TAYMON J. JACKSON, Plaintiff, No. C 08-3227 PJH (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION United United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a state prisoner. In the initial review order, the court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, saying that it was disorganized and did not provide factual allegations as to what each individual defendant actually did to violate plaintiff's rights. Plaintiff has amended. In the amendment, plaintiff alleges that after he completed a fifteen-month term in the Security Housing Unit ("SHU"), he was classified for indeterminate SHU housing, thus retaining him in the SHU. He was told that this was done for the security of the institution and staff, based on his prior record of disciplinary violations ­ violations he says were nonviolent. His explanations for the claims he contends arise from this remain somewhat jumbled, but can be ascertained. First, plaintiff contends that his placement in the SHU for an indeterminate term violated his Eighth Amendment rights. He has, however, alleged no facts that suggest conditions in that housing unit are such that placement there would be cruel and unusual punishment. He has failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Plaintiff also says that he had "already been punished for" the prior rules violation convictions that were used to impose the indeterminate SHU term, which may imply that he wants to raise a double jeopardy claim. Such a claim would fail, however, because the Double Jeopardy Clause does not apply to prison punishments. See United States v. Newby, 11 F.3d 1143, 1144 (3d Cir. 1993). Plaintiff also contends that he was subjected to "intimidations, retaliation, denials, [and] discriminations." He provides, however, no facts whatever. These conclusory allegations are insufficient under the standard set out by the United States Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009) (legal conclusions must be supported by factual allegations). For these reasons, plaintiff has failed to state a federal claim. Because all federal claims will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, which will be dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). CONCLUSION The federal claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. The state claw claims are DISMISSED without prejudice to raising them in state court. The clerk shall close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 13, 2010. PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 P:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.08\JACKSON3227.DSM.wpd 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?