Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04879/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04879-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Although the docket sheet lists the “Department of Corrections” as the defendant to

this action, plaintiff, in his August 14, 2006 letter, does not identify the Department of

Corrections or anyone else as a defendant. The Court construes the action as brought against

the above-named individuals because plaintiff lists them as defendants in the caption of his

application to proceed in forma pauperis, filed September 27, 2006.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LONNIE D. CHATMAN,

Plaintiff.

 v.

JOHN MARSHALL, Warden, R.

GRENZ, A. Warden, 

Defendant. _____________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-4879 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Docket No. 4)

The above-entitled civil action was opened on August 14, 2006, when plaintiff, a

California prisoner currently incarcerated at the California Men’s Colony (“CMC”) and

proceeding pro se, filed a letter in which he complains that “inmate Lugman verbally

sexually assaulted” two female CMC employees. The Clerk of the Court filed the letter as a 

complaint, and the Court herein construes it as such.1

 Plaintiff has applied for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis. 

Where a plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the district court must dismiss

the case if it determines the complaint “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Pro se pleadings, however, must be liberally construed. 

Case 3:06-cv-04879-MMC Document 10 Filed 01/03/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

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

In the instant filings, plaintiff does not assert the violation of any federal law, or any

other basis for federal jurisdiction, in connection with his claims regarding the alleged sexual

harassment by Lugman. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (providing federal jurisdiction for

civil actions arising under federal law). Further, to the extent plaintiff intends to bring his

claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, any such claim must fail, as allegations of verbal harassment

and abuse fail to state a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Freeman v. Arpaio,

125 F.3d 732, 738 (9th Cir. 1997). Moreover, because Lugman is an inmate, his actions are

not taken “under color of state law,” an essential element of a § 1983 claim. See West v.

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Finally, plaintiff has made no allegations of any type with

respect to John Marshall and R. Grenz, the individuals whom plaintiff has identified as

defendants in the caption of his application to proceed in forma pauperis. See Leer v.

Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding liability may be imposed on individual

defendant under § 1983 only if plaintiff can show such defendant proximately caused

deprivation of federally protected right). 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint is hereby DISMISSED for failure to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted. In light of this dismissal, the application to proceed in

forma pauperis is hereby DENIED and no fee is due.

This order terminates Docket No. 4.

The Clerk shall close the file.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 3, 2007 _________________________

 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

 United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04879-MMC Document 10 Filed 01/03/07 Page 2 of 2