Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00230/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00230-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN McDEVITT,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-0230 LKK JFM P

vs.

SOLANO COUNTY JAIL, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28

U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). An initial partial filing fee of $7.42 will be assessed by this

order. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to

collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the

Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the

preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will be

forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s

account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

Case 2:08-cv-00230-LKK -JFM Document 7 Filed 03/18/08 Page 1 of 4
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

2

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised

claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28

(9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic

Corp. v. Twombly, U.S. , 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S.

41, 47 (1957)). In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain

more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual

allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, id. 

However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘“give the

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”’” Erickson

v. Pardus, U.S. , 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (quoting Bell, slip op. at 7-8, in turn quoting

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). When reviewing a complaint, the court must accept

as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, id., and construe the pleading in the

light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

Case 2:08-cv-00230-LKK -JFM Document 7 Filed 03/18/08 Page 2 of 4
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

 The constitutional basis for plaintiff’s claim is gleaned from exhibits appended to the 1

complaint, which are a part thereof for all purposes. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c). In the exhibits,

plaintiff also complains that the denial of the unlock constituted “cruel and unusual punishment.” 

There is nothing in any of the allegations before the court which implicate Eighth Amendment

concerns.

 These allegations are in the first inmate grievance form attached to plaintiff’s 2

complaint. See footnote 1, supra.

3

Plaintiff claims that his constitutional right to due process was violated when 1

defendant Officer Barrilleaux took away plaintiff’s “unlock” due to the presence of a clothesline

in plaintiff’s cell and when defendants Sergeant Childers, Officer Bradford, and Sergeant

Sanders denied the grievance submitted by plaintiff thereafter. 

Prison inmates have a right protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment in “freedom from restraint which . . . imposes atypical and significant hardship on

the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472,

484 (1995). In Sandin, the United States Supreme Court held that disciplinary segregation for a

period of thirty days did not give rise to a liberty interest protectible by the federal due process

clause where the conditions in disciplinary segregation “with insignificant exceptions, mirrored

those conditions imposed upon inmates in administrative segregation and protective custody.” 

Id. at 486.

In the instant case, plaintiff alleges that Officer Barrilleaux punished him without 2

due process by denying him of an “unlock” for having a clothesline in his cell, instead of

counseling him or advising him of behavioral expectations and without commencing any

disciplinary proceedings before a classification officer. Although it is not entirely clear from the

complaint, it appears that an unlock refers to a period of out-of-cell time. Moreover, although the

duration of an “unlock” is also not described in the complaint, it is clear that plaintiff was only

denied one “unlock,” and that he was denied the “unlock” on December 1, 2007. (Complaint,

filed January 30, 2008, at ¶ IV.)

/////

Case 2:08-cv-00230-LKK -JFM Document 7 Filed 03/18/08 Page 3 of 4
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

4

The denial of out of cell time on one occasion does not implicate a liberty interest

protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Cf. Sandin, supra. For this

reason, plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted in this § 1983 action.

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 

Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $7.42. All fees shall be collected and paid in

accordance with this court’s order to the Sheriff of Solano County filed concurrently herewith;

and

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: March 17, 2008.

12;mcde0230.56

Case 2:08-cv-00230-LKK -JFM Document 7 Filed 03/18/08 Page 4 of 4