Brooks v. Ducart

Filing 5

ORDER OF DISMISSAL, ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 10/25/10. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2010)

Download PDF
Brooks v. Ducart Doc. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 vs. C. E. DUCART, Acting Warden, Defendant. / CHARLIE E. BROOKS, Plaintiff, No. C 10-1134 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 A. Standard of Review Plaintiff, a prisoner at Pelican Bay State Prison, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Venue is proper in this district because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the action occurred in this district. See 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). DISCUSSION Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims which 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. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (per curiam) (citations omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint "does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 1974. The United States Supreme Court has recently explained the "plausible on its face" standard of Twombly: "[w]hile legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009). 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 deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). B. Legal Claims Plaintiff wants to obtain his GED. However, the prison has stopped all its education programs, including one formerly available by mail. There is no constitutional right to education or rehabilitation in prison. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 348 (1981) (deprivation of rehabilitation and educational programs does not violate Eighth Amendment); Wishon v. Gammon, 978 F.2d 446, 450 (8th Cir. 1992) ("Prisoners have no constitutional right to educational or vocational opportunities during incarceration."); Beck v. Lynaugh, 842 F.2d 757, 762 (5th Cir.1988) ("[A] state has no constitutional obligation to provide basic educational or vocational training to prisoners."); Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 530 (9th Cir. 1985) (no right to vocational 2 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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 course for rehabilitation); Baumann v. Arizona Dept. of Corrections, 754 F.2d 841, 846 (9th Cir. 1985) (general limitation of jobs and educational opportunities is not considered punishment); Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1254-55 (9th Cir.1982) ("there is no constitutional right to rehabilitation"); Newman v. Alabama, 559 F.2d 283, 291 (5th Cir. 1977) (state has no obligation to provide prisoners with educational programs). The complaint therefore must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. And because no amendment could change the fact that there is no constitutional right to education in prison, the dismissal will be without leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (district courts must afford pro se prisoner litigants an opportunity to amend to correct any deficiency in their complaints, unless no amendment could save the complaint). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. The clerk shall close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 25, 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.10\BROOKS1134.DSM.wpd 3

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?