Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04680/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04680-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN KOFF,

Plaintiff,

v.

GREGORY AHERN,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-04680-JD 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND AND DENYING 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Re: Dkt. No. 2

Plaintiff, a federal pretrial detainee, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

DISCUSSION

I. 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.” Although a complaint “does not need detailed 

factual 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 

Case 3:14-cv-04680-JD Document 7 Filed 03/09/15 Page 1 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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 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 that: (1) a right secured by 

the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was 

committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

II. LEGAL CLAIMS

Plaintiff is a federal pretrial detainee being held at Glenn Dyer Jail in Alameda County. 

He alleges that federal pretrial detainees are treated differently than state pretrial detainees, which 

amounts to punishment. “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)).1 

When challenging his treatment with regard to other prisoners, courts have held that in 

order to present an equal protection claim a prisoner must allege that his treatment is invidiously 

dissimilar to that received by other inmates. More v. Farrier, 984 F.2d 269, 271-72 (8th Cir. 

1993) (absent evidence of invidious discrimination, federal courts should defer to judgment of 

prison officials). The first step in determining whether the inmate’s equal protection rights were 

violated is to identify the relevant class of prisoners to which he belongs. Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 

F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2013). The class must be comprised of similarly situated persons so that 

 

1

“Prisoners are protected under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from 

invidious discrimination based on race.” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974) (citation 

omitted). Yet, there are no allegations that race is a factor in this case.

Case 3:14-cv-04680-JD Document 7 Filed 03/09/15 Page 2 of 6
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the factor motivating the alleged discrimination can be identified. Id. at 1031 (affirming district 

court’s grant of defendants’ motion for summary judgment because inmate failed to raise triable 

issue of fact that he was treated differently than any other inmate whom the officers did not know 

was entitled to a vegetarian meal).

When a pretrial detainee challenges conditions of his confinement, the proper inquiry is 

whether the conditions amount to punishment in violation of the Due Process Clause of the 

Fourteenth Amendment. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n.16 (1979). “‘[T]he State does 

not acquire the power to punish with which the Eighth Amendment is concerned until after it has 

secured a formal adjudication of guilt in accordance with due process of law. Where the State 

seeks to impose punishment without such an adjudication, the pertinent guarantee is the Due 

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.’” Id. (quoting Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 

671-72 n.40 (1977)).

Plaintiff alleges that federal pretrial detainees are kept locked in their cells excessively, 

must have a jail job to be allowed outside of their cells, do not have sufficient recreation time, are 

overcharged for commissary and telephone services, and do not have the option for a jail job. To 

the extent plaintiff wishes to raise an equal protection claim, he must provide more information 

regarding how state pretrial detainees are treated differently. To the extent plaintiff is raising a 

due process claim, he must provide specific information regarding the claim. Simply stating that 

the treatment amounts to punishment is insufficient. Plaintiff must also describe specific instances 

to support his allegations. Plaintiff identifies no specific actions of any defendants in this action 

and only names as defendant, the Sherriff of Alameda County. If plaintiff believes this is a policy 

of the county as opposed to actions of specific jail guards he must present this allegation.

Plaintiff has also included a jail grievance with a response from jail officials that refutes 

many of his allegations. It states that cell doors were not locked down as plaintiff suggested and 

the week prior to his grievance plaintiff received 6-8 hours a day of recreation time. Plaintiff also 

includes an exhibit that recorded his amount of time outside of his cell. He noted that he received 

on average 4.78 hours outside of the cell per 24 hour period, over the course of a month. The jail 

does lock the cell doors at night. Jail officials also noted that if plaintiff wanted more time outside 

Case 3:14-cv-04680-JD Document 7 Filed 03/09/15 Page 3 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

of his cell he could submit a request for a job. 

The complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend for plaintiff to address these issues. 

Plaintiff must support his claims with more information regarding his treatment and the more 

beneficial treatment that others receive. Plaintiff must also identify specific defendants and 

describe their actions or present allegations of a specific policy of the Sherriff’s department that 

violates the constitution.

Plaintiff has also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. “A preliminary injunction is 

an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense 

Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “The proper legal standard for preliminary 

injunctive relief requires a party to demonstrate ‘that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he 

is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities 

tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.’” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 

F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20).

To show irreparable harm, the “plaintiff must show that he is under threat of suffering 

‘injury in fact’ that is concrete and particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, not 

conjectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; 

and it must be likely that a favorable judicial decision will prevent or redress the injury.” 

Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009) (citing Friends of Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw

Environmental Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-181 (2000)). In sum, an injunction “may 

only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 

22.

Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction repeats the same allegations of the 

complaint. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm because 

the motion does not present specific and concrete allegations that plaintiff is under threat of 

suffering an injury or that he is likely to succeed on the merits. Plaintiff has not presented 

sufficient evidence of an equal protection violation or a due process violation to warrant the 

issuance of such an extraordinary remedy. The motion is denied.

Case 3:14-cv-04680-JD Document 7 Filed 03/09/15 Page 4 of 6
5

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

Northern District of California

CONCLUSION

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. 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. 

2. The motion for a preliminary injunction (Docket No. 2) is DENIED.

3. 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. 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: March 9, 2015

______________________________________

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-04680-JD Document 7 Filed 03/09/15 Page 5 of 6
6

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN KOFF,

Plaintiff,

v.

GREGORY AHERN,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-04680-JD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on 3/9/2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said 

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing 

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle 

located in the Clerk's office.

Kevin Koff

ULX879

550 6th Street

Oakland, CA 94607 

Dated: 3/9/2015

Richard W. Wieking

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO

Case 3:14-cv-04680-JD Document 7 Filed 03/09/15 Page 6 of 6