Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_16-cv-01880/USCOURTS-cand-1_16-cv-01880-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

DAVID SCOTT HARRISON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JEFFREY BEARD, et. al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 16-1880 NJV (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §

1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 6.)

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

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;

the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the

grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations

omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual

Case 1:16-cv-01880-NJV Document 7 Filed 07/11/16 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

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, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)

(citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has recently explained

the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While 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, 556 U.S. 662,

679 (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, a man, presents an equal protection violation based on the differing

treatment of women at female institutions.

"The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment commands that no

State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,' which

is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike." City of

Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985) (quoting Plyler v. Doe, 457

U.S. 202, 216 (1982)); Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1168 (9th Cir. 2005)

(evidence of different treatment of unlike groups does not support an equal protection

claim). Classifications such as those based on gender, are “subject to somewhat

heightened review” and “will survive equal protection scrutiny to the extent they are

substantially related to a legitimate state interest.” Id. at 441. 

Case 1:16-cv-01880-NJV Document 7 Filed 07/11/16 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

Plaintiff argues that he is denied certain clothing, foods, drinks, objects, and

appliances from vendors that female inmates with a similar classification status at other

prisons can purchase. Plaintiff states that he “is not transgender nor transexual, nor does

he exhibit or claim any gender identity other than male. [He] does not identify

psychologically with the female sex.” Complaint at 3. Plaintiff repeatedly refers to vendor

products, but provides no specific details and it is not clear what items he is unable to

purchase that female inmates at other prisons can purchase. While he has set forth the

basic elements of an equal protection claim, he has failed to present sufficient allegations

that plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. The

complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend for plaintiff to provide more information

about specific items he is unable to purchase that women are allowed to purchase. He

must provide additional information so defendants, if they are served, can adequately

respond to the allegations. See Gonzalez v. Mullen, 2013 WL 1333560, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal.

March 29, 2013) (plaintiff identified specific items that females could purchase but men

were prohibited from obtaining, though summary judgment granted for defendants).

CONCLUSION

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the

standards set forth above. The amended complaint must be filed within twenty-eight (28)

days of the date this order is filed and must include the caption and civil case number used

in this order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an

amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all

the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.

1992). He may not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to

amend within the designated time will result in the dismissal of this case.

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

court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed

“Notice of Change of Address,” and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion. 

Case 1:16-cv-01880-NJV Document 7 Filed 07/11/16 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 11, 2016. 

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:16-cv-01880-NJV Document 7 Filed 07/11/16 Page 4 of 4