Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00677/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00677-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARVELLOUS ASHA XYAH GREENE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

J. JONES, ET AL.,

Defendants. /

No. CV 08-00677 CRB (PR)

ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL

AND SCREENING CASE UNDER 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(a)

Plaintiff Greene, currently incarcerated in state prison and proceeding pro se, sued

various state prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional

rights resulting from strip searches conducted at the prison. See generally Compl. (dkt. 1). 

This Court dismissed Greene’s case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), concluding that Greene had

not stated a claim because he had not alleged any facts suggesting that the strip searches were

unreasonable. See Order, dkt. 18. 

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded, noting that this Court had not

acknowledged and analyzed Greene’s amended complaint in dismissing the case. The Ninth

Circuit also “dr[ew] the district court’s attention to Greene’s claim that Muslim inmates at

CCI were singled-out for strip searches, whereas inmates of other religions were not.” 

Mem., dkt. 28, at 2.

Case 1:08-cv-00677-CRB Document 49 Filed 03/25/13 Page 1 of 2
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 G:\CRBALL\2008\677\order appointing counsel.wpd 2

On remand, Greene has requested appointment of counsel, see dkt. 47, and

Defendants have requested that the Court again evaluate and dismiss the case under

§ 1915A(a), see dkt. 48. In light of the Ninth Circuit’s instructions, the Court’s § 1915A

review concludes that “Greene’s claim that Muslim inmates at CCI were singled-out for strip

searches, whereas inmates of other religions were not” can proceed. After reviewing

Greene’s Second Amended Complaint, dkt. 34, the Court concludes that for the same reasons

the Court initially dismissed this case, see dkt. 18, no other claims survive § 1915A review.

And, the Court concludes that there is good cause to appoint Plaintiff counsel. 

Accordingly, Nathaniel P. Garrett, of the law firm of Jones Day, is appointed to represent

Plaintiff Greene in these proceedings in connection with his claim “that Muslim inmates at

CCI were singled-out for strip searches, whereas inmates of other religions were not.” 

Defendants have submitted nothing related to the merits of this claim, and the Court

concludes that the prejudice, if any, to Defendants from permitting further amendment would

be minimal. Accordingly, Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file an amended complaint under

Rule 15(a)(2) within sixty days of the filing of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 25, 2013 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00677-CRB Document 49 Filed 03/25/13 Page 2 of 2