Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00805/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00805-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRY K. PLEASANT, 

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF MERCED , et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-00805-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S DUE 

PROCESS CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE and 

REFERRING ACTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

(Docs. 30, 31)

Plaintiff, Terry K. Pleasant, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. '§ 1983 and 1985 on May 28, 2013. (Doc. 1.) 

Plaintiff’s claims arise from events which occurred in 2012 and 2013 when he was a criminal 

pretrial detainee at the Merced County Jail in Merced, California. (Id.) 

On January 9, 2014, Plaintiff’s Complaint was dismissed with leave to amend for

failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (Doc. 9.) Plaintiff thereafter filed the 

First Amended Complaint (Doc. 13) that was screened and found devoid of any cognizable 

claims, which resulted in dismissal of the action with prejudice on June 12, 2015. (Docs. 24, 25.)

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit of Appeals (Doc. 26) who issued a 

memorandum on September 22, 2016, which took effect via Mandate on October 17, 2016 (Docs. 

30, 31). The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of Plaintiff’s equal protection and conspiracy 

claims; reversed the dismissal of Plaintiff’s condition-of-confinement claim; vacated the 

dismissal of Plaintiff’s due process claims for excessive fines and for unlawful deprivation of 

Case 1:13-cv-00805-AWI-SKO Document 32 Filed 10/28/16 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

property for this Court to dismiss them without prejudice; vacated dismissal of Plaintiff’s state 

law claims leaving open the question of whether supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised; 

and remanded for further proceedings. (Id.)

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s due process claims for excessive fines and for unlawful deprivation of 

property are DISMISSED without prejudice; and

2. The case is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further actions consistent with the 

Ninth Circuit directives.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 27, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00805-AWI-SKO Document 32 Filed 10/28/16 Page 2 of 2