Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01307/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01307-1/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

27

28

Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.15\Hall307disftsc.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATHAN HALL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ZANE THOMAS,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 15-1307 LHK (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Upon review, the court found that the complaint did not state a

cognizable claim for relief. The court explained the deficiencies of the complaint to plaintiff,

and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff has now filed an amended complaint. 

For the reasons that follow, the court DISMISSES the amended complaint with prejudice for

failure to state a cognizable claim for relief.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

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

Case 5:15-cv-01307-LHK Document 11 Filed 12/15/15 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

27

28

Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.15\Hall307disftsc.wpd 2

seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §

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

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

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. Plaintiff’s Claims

According to the amended complaint, on November 4, 2013, defendant Zane Thomas, a

San Quentin State Prison employee, was proctoring a college test for Feather River College at

the prison. Thomas accused plaintiff of cheating on the test, and reported plaintiff’s cheating to

Feather River College Judicial Committee. Thomas also issued a serious Rules Violation Report

(“CDC 115”). Plaintiff was given a disciplinary hearing and was ultimately found guilty of

cheating. However, the hearing officer reduced plaintiff’s charge from a serious CDC 115 to an

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

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

also claims that Thomas violated the Due Process Clause, Equal Protection Clause, and several

California statutes.

In the court’s order of dismissal with leave to amend, the court explained that a prisoner

has no constitutionally guaranteed immunity from being falsely or wrongly accused of conduct

which may result in the deprivation of a protected liberty interest. See Sprouse v. Babcock, 870

F.2d 450, 452 (8th Cir. 1989). As long as a prisoner is afforded procedural due process in the

disciplinary hearing, allegations of a fabricated charge fail to state a claim under Section 1983. 

See Hanrahan v. Lane, 747 F.2d 1137, 1140-41 (7th Cir. 1984). In the amended complaint,

plaintiff still does not allege that he was deprived of procedural due process. Thus, plaintiff’s

claim that Thomas falsely accused him of cheating does not state a claim for relief. 

In addition, the court previously stated that plaintiff was not deprived of a protected

liberty interest because the discipline plaintiff received for the administrative CDC 115 resulted

Case 5:15-cv-01307-LHK Document 11 Filed 12/15/15 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

27

28

Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.15\Hall307disftsc.wpd 3

only in counseling and a reprimand, which does not amount to an atypical or significant

hardship. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995); see, e.g., Smith v. Mensinger, 293 F.3d

641, 654 (3d Cir. 2002) (concluding that even if the charges that led to disciplinary confinement

were false, no claim was stated because the disciplinary confinement imposed was too short to

amount to an atypical and significant hardship under Sandin). Thus, plaintiff has not stated a

cognizable claim that his right to due process was violated.

Plaintiff’s equal protection claim also fails. “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)). Here, plaintiff sets forth no facts from

which it can be inferred that he was treated differently from any other similarly situated person. 

Therefore, plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim that his right to equal protection was

violated.

Finally, plaintiff’s claim that Thomas violated several state statutes does not state a

cognizable claim for relief in a federal civil rights case. In order to state a federal claim, plaintiff

must allege that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated. 

See West, 487 U.S. at 48. Thus, plaintiff’s state law claims are not cognizable in this federal

civil rights case.

In sum, plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief and the amended complaint is

dismissed. Because it is “beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of

his claim which would entitle him to relief,” see Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th

Cir. 2007), the dismissal is without leave to amend, and with prejudice.

CONCLUSION

The amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The

Clerk shall terminate all pending motions, enter judgment, and close the case.

///

///

Case 5:15-cv-01307-LHK Document 11 Filed 12/15/15 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

27

28

Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.15\Hall307disftsc.wpd 4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: LUCY H. KOH 

United States District Judge

12/14/2015

Case 5:15-cv-01307-LHK Document 11 Filed 12/15/15 Page 4 of 4