Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_16-cv-07103/USCOURTS-cand-1_16-cv-07103-1/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

EUREKA DIVISION

DAVID SCOTT HARRISON,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. KERNAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-07103-NJV

ORDER OF SERVICE, ORDER 

SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. The court has denied his opposition to the removal of the action to this court. (Doc. 12.)

DISCUSSION

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.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the statement 

need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it 

rests.’”” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). Although in order to state 

a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to 

Case 1:16-cv-07103-RMI Document 13 Filed 01/20/17 Page 1 of 4
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

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 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 

recently 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 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).

Controlling Law

In this action, Plaintiff alleges that he has been deprived of his right to the equal protection 

of the law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987), the Court held that when a prison regulation 

[or practice] impinges on inmates' constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably 

related to legitimate penological interests. The Court set out four factors to be considered:

1) Whether there is a valid, rational connection between the prison regulation and 

the legitimate government interest put forward to justify it. A regulation cannot be 

sustained where the logical connection between the regulation and the asserted goal is so 

remote as to render the policy arbitrary or irrational, and the government objective must be 

a legitimate and neutral one.

(2) Whether there are alternative means of exercising the right that remains open. If so, 

courts should be particularly conscious of the measure of judicial deference owed to 

corrections officials.

(3) What impact the accommodation of the asserted right will have on guards, other 

inmates and the allocation of prison resources generally. If the accommodation will have a 

significant ripple effect the courts should be particularly deferential to the informed 

discretion of correctional officials.

Case 1:16-cv-07103-RMI Document 13 Filed 01/20/17 Page 2 of 4
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

(4) If there is an absence of ready alternatives, this is evidence of the reasonableness of a 

prison regulation. 

Id. at 89-91.

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are state actors and that they have discriminated 

against him based on gender. Specifically, he alleges that Defendants have imposed personal 

property requirements on him that are disparate from those imposed on similarly situated female 

inmates of the same, and greater, security risk classifications. He claims equal protection 

violations in the decision making process by which the CDCR provides favored treatment to 

female inmates as compared with male inmates, for no reason other than gender. The court finds 

that Plaintiff's allegations are sufficient to state a colorable claim for a violation of the right to 

equal protection of the law under the Eighth Amendment.

CONCLUSION

The Clerk shall issue a summons and the United States Marshal shall serve the summons, 

copies of the complaint with attachments and copies of this order on the named Defendants or 

their successors. 

All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must be served on Defendants, or 

Defendants’ counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to 

Defendants or Defendants' counsel.

Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No 

further Court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) is required before the parties 

may conduct discovery.

It is 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.” He also 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).

A telephonic case management conference is HEREBY SET for 10:00 a.m. on 

February 28, 2017. The parties shall attend the case management conference by dialing 888-

Case 1:16-cv-07103-RMI Document 13 Filed 01/20/17 Page 3 of 4
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

684-8852 and entering access code 1868782. The parties shall be prepared to set dates for 

discovery, dispositive motions, and trial. The court will mail a copy of the Handbook for Pro 

Se Litigants to Plaintiff, along with a copy of the standing order regarding case management

statements. The parties shall file individual case management statements no later than 

February 21, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 20, 2017

______________________________________

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:16-cv-07103-RMI Document 13 Filed 01/20/17 Page 4 of 4