Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03528/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03528-0/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

1

 Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Docket No. 6.)

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSHUA JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

P. LORD, et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 15-3528 NC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1

 Plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a

separate order. For the reasons stated below, the complaint is dismissed for failure to state a

cognizable claim. 

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a

prisoner seeks 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. 

Case 5:15-cv-03528-NC Document 10 Filed 11/25/15 Page 1 of 3
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

28 U.S.C. § 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).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that

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

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487

U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

II. Plaintiff’s Claim

According to the complaint, on February 14, 2014, after Plaintiff attended Islamic

Services, Correctional Officer Lord called out to him in a loud voice, and asked, “How are

you going to Muslim services, and [you’re] going around on the yard doing homosexual

stuff?” Plaintiff asserts that Correctional Officer Lord’s question was made in the presence

of other inmates, most of whom were Islamic, and prison staff. Based solely on these facts,

Plaintiff asserts that defendants, Jeffrey Beard, the Secretary of the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation; Warden Muniz; and Correctional Officer Lord, engaged in a

hate crime, discriminated against Plaintiff based on sexual orientation, and engaged in

religious persecution against Plaintiff.

However, allegations of verbal harassment and abuse fail to state a claim cognizable

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 738 (9th Cir. 1997)

overruled in part on other grounds by Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 884-85 (9th Cir.

2008); see, e.g., Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996), amended 135 F.3d 1318

(9th Cir. 1998) (disrespectful and assaultive comments by prison guard not enough to

implicate Eighth Amendment); Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987)

(directing vulgar language at prisoner does not state constitutional claim); Burton v.

Livingston, 791 F.2d 97, 99 (8th Cir. 1986) (“mere words, without more, do not invade a

federally protected right”). As a result, however offensive and derogatory Correctional

Officer Lord’s question allegedly used with respect to Plaintiff, that alone does not give rise

to a constitutional claim. See, e.g., Clinton v. Geovenetti, No. CV 08-4178-DOC (OP), 2013

WL 5379487, *5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2013) (a prison guard’s verbal abuse and derogatory

Case 5:15-cv-03528-NC Document 10 Filed 11/25/15 Page 2 of 3
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

comments regarding homosexuals is insufficient to state a constitutional violation); cf.

Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1252 (9th Cir. 1982) (federal court cannot order guards to

refrain from using racial slurs to harass prisoners); Burton, 791 F.2d at 101 n.1 (use of racial

slurs in prison does not offend Constitution).

Because Plaintiff’s claim is not cognizable under Section 1983, it is DISMISSED. 

Further, because no amount of amendment would cure the deficiency, the dismissal is

without leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

The complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk shall close the file,

terminate all pending motions, and enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-03528-NC Document 10 Filed 11/25/15 Page 3 of 3