Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02378/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02378-0/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

VINCENT P. TERRY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2378 MCE GGH P

vs.

E.S. ALAMEIDA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 3, 2005, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the

original complaint and granted plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint. Thirty days

passed and plaintiff did not file an amended complaint. Accordingly, on February 8, 2005, the

court recommended that this action be dismissed. On February 28, 2005, plaintiff filed

objections and an amended complaint. On March 30, 2005, the court vacated the February 8,

2005, findings and recommendations and dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend

for plaintiff’s failure to identify the defendants and state the relief sought. In this order, the court

stated that defendants were not required to respond to the second amended complaint unless

ordered by the court. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s second amended complaint filed

April 28, 2005. 

Case 2:03-cv-02378-MCE -GGH Document 38 Filed 07/26/05 Page 1 of 3
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 factual allegations of the second amended complaint are similar to those

contained in the original complaint. However, plaintiff alleges one federal claim only: violation

of his right to Equal Protection. Named as defendants are Anderson, Gutierrez, Randsell,

Ornoski, Enriquez and Prosper. Plaintiff alleges that defendants have refused to let him attend

fire camp. Defendant Anderson wanted to know why plaintiff’s classification score for rules

violations went from 30 to 105. Plaintiff told defendant Anderson that his classification score

cleared him for fire camp. 

Plaintiff alleges that in order to process his fire camp application, the

classification committee required his archived file. Defendant Gutierrez granted plaintiff’s

administrative appeal requesting that the archived file be faxed to the prison. Plaintiff alleges

that despite granting the appeal, defendant Gutierrez did not make a sincere effort to make sure

that the archived file was faxed. 

Plaintiff sent the Inmate Appeals Branch a letter regarding the failure of prison

officials to obtain his archived file. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Randsell refused to obtain the

file despite receiving this letter. Plaintiff alleges that defendants Ornoski, Enriquez and Prosper

denied his administrative appeals regarding the failure of prison officials to obtain the archived

file.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated state law as well as his right to Equal

Protection. However, plaintiff’s Equal Protection claim is not based on his allegations that

defendants refused to obtain his archived file which contained information regarding his

disciplinary history and classification score. Rather, plaintiff goes on to allege that inmates with

worse criminal records than his were allowed to participate in the fire camp program. Plaintiff

alleges that defendants did not use his criminal history to find him ineligible for the fire camp

program until after he filed his complaint.

/////

/////

Case 2:03-cv-02378-MCE -GGH Document 38 Filed 07/26/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Plaintiff alleges that defendants’ criteria for determining which inmates could

attend fire camp bore no rational relation to a legitimate state interest. Although plaintiff may

have difficulty proving this claim, he has stated a colorable Equal Protection claim. New Orleans

v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297, 96 S.Ct. 2513 (1976). Accordingly, defendants are directed to respond

to the second amended complaint.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty days of the date of

this order, defendants shall file a response to plaintiff’s second amended complaint filed April

28, 2005.

DATED: 7/26/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

ter2378.dis

Case 2:03-cv-02378-MCE -GGH Document 38 Filed 07/26/05 Page 3 of 3