Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01307/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01307-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

FILED 

JUL 1 7 2015 

crlW~~oll~t~'t~~r NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

11 NATHAN HALL, ) No. C 15-1307 LHK (PR) 

) 

12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

) WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

13 vs. ) 

) 

14 ZANE THOMAS, ) 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

) 

Defendant. ) __________________________ ) 

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint 

pursuant to 42 U .S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a 

separate order. For the reasons stated below, the court dismisses the complaint with leave to 

amend. 

DISCUSSION 

A. Standard ofReview 

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner 

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss 

any claims that 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(b )(1 ), (2). Prose pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. 

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend 

P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.15\Hall307dwla. wpd 

Case 5:15-cv-01307-LHK Document 6 Filed 07/17/15 Page 1 of 4
r---

Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696,699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

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

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

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

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

6 B. Plaintiffs Claims 

7 According to the complaint, on November 5, 2013, defendant Zane Thomas, a San 

8 Quentin State Prison employee, was proctoring a college test at the prison for Feather River 

9 College. Thomas accused plaintiff of cheating on the test. Thomas reported plaintiffs cheating 

10 to Feather River College Judicial Committee and also issued a serious Rules Violation Report 

11 ("CDC 115"). Plaintiff was given a disciplinary hearing and ultimately found guilty of cheating. 

12 However, the hearing officer reduced plaintiffs charge from a serious CDC 115 to an 

13 administrative CDC 115. Plaintiff alleges that the prison has no authority to conduct a hearing 

14 regarding education and testing, and that Thomas falsely accused plaintiff of cheating. 

15 As currently pled, plaintiffs complaint fails to state a claim for relief. A prisoner has no 

16 constitutionally guaranteed immunity from being falsely or wrongly accused of conduct which 

17 may result in the deprivation of a protected liberty interest. Sprouse v. Babcock, 870 F .2d 450, 

18 452 (8th Cir. 1989). As long as a prisoner is afforded procedural due process in the disciplinary 

19 hearing, allegations of a fabricated charge fail to state a claim under Section 1983. Hanrahan v. 

20 Lane, 747F.2d 1137,1140-41 (7thCir.1984). Plaintiffdoesnotallegethathewasdeprivedofa 

21 protected liberty interest. Here, plaintiffs exhibits demonstrate that the discipline he received 

22 for the administrative CDC 115 resulted in counseling and a reprimand. Thus, plaintiffs claim 

23 is not actionable as a due process claim under Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). See, 

24 e.g., Smith v. Mensinger, 293 F.3d 641, 654 (3d Cir. 2002) (concluding that even if the charges 

25 that led to disciplinary confinement were false, no claim was stated because the disciplinary 

26 confinement imposed was too short to amount to an atypical and significant hardship under 

27 Sandin). As currently pled, it is unclear what constitutional right plaintiff claims defendant 

28 violated. 

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend 

P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.l5\Hall307dw Ia. wpd 2 

Case 5:15-cv-01307-LHK Document 6 Filed 07/17/15 Page 2 of 4
If plaintiff can do so in good faith, plaintiff may amend his complaint to allege that 

2 defendant deprived him of a constitutional right. Specifically, plaintiff must allege facts 

3 showing that defendant's actions both actually and proximately caused the deprivation of a 

4 federally protected right. Lemire v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 726 F .3d 1062, 

5 1085 (9th Cir. 2013). Even at the pleading stage, "[a] plaintiff must allege facts, not simply 

6 conclusions, that show that an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of his civil 

7 rights." Barren v. Harrington, 152 F .3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). Although the federal rules 

8 require brevity in pleading, a complaint must be sufficient to give the defendants "fair notice" of 

9 the claim and the "grounds upon which it rests." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) 

10 (citations omitted). "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the 

11 speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 553-56 (2007) (citations 

12 omitted). 

13 CONCLUSION 

14 For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby orders as follows: 

15 

16 

1. 

2. 

Plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. 

If plaintiff can cure the pleading deficiencies described above, he shall file an 

17 AMENDED COMPLAINT within thirty days from the date this order is filed. The amended 

18 complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (C 15-1307 LHK 

19 (PR)) and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. The amended complaint must 

20 indicate which specific, named defendant(s) was involved in each cause of action, what each 

21 defendant did, what effect this had on plaintiff and what right plaintiff alleges was violated. 

22 Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the prior complaint by reference. If plaintiff files an 

23 amended complaint, he must allege, in good faith, facts - not merely conclusions of Jaw - that 

24 demonstrate that he is entitled to relief under the applicable federal statutes. Failure to file an 

25 amended complaint within thirty days and in accordance with this order will result in a 

26 finding that further leave to amend would be futile, and this action will be dismissed. 

27 3. Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 

28 "[A] plaintiffwaives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged 

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend 

P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.l5\Hall307dw Ia. wpd 3 

Case 5:15-cv-01307-LHK Document 6 Filed 07/17/15 Page 3 of 4
in the amended complaint." London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981). 

2 Defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants. See Ferdik v. 

3 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). 

4 4. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the 

5 court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the Clerk headed "Notice 

6 of Change of Address," and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to 

7 do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule 

8 of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

10 DATED: I/11Pf2D!s11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend 

P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.l5\Hall307dwla.wpd 4 

Case 5:15-cv-01307-LHK Document 6 Filed 07/17/15 Page 4 of 4