Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-02289/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-02289-0/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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DEMAREAK J. TURNER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SALINAS VALLEY STATE PRISON, et 

al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 18-cv-02289-JD 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND 

Re: Dkt. No. 8 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, 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 

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 

Case 3:18-cv-02289-JD Document 11 Filed 08/14/18 Page 1 of 5
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 Californi

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 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). 

LEGAL CLAIMS 

Plaintiff states that he was denied family visiting privileges due to an improperly issued 

Rules Violation Report (“RVR”) from a different prison. California inmates are generally 

classified for placement and custody designation, and reclassified, if needed, for administrative or 

disciplinary reasons. Interests protected by the Due Process Clause may arise from two sourcesthe Due Process Clause itself and laws of the states. See Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 223-27 

(1976). Changes in conditions so severe as to affect the sentence imposed in an unexpected 

manner implicate the Due Process Clause itself, whether or not they are authorized by state law. 

See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). Deprivations authorized by state law that are 

less severe or more closely related to the expected terms of confinement may also amount to 

deprivations of a procedurally protected liberty interest, provided that (1) state statutes or 

regulations narrowly restrict the power of prison officials to impose the deprivation, i.e. give the 

inmate a kind of right to avoid it, and (2) the liberty in question is one of “real substance.” See id. 

at 477-87. 

An inmate’s classification score determines inmate placement unless a specific 

administrative determinant, e.g. conviction for arson or sex crimes or disciplinary problems, is 

affixed, see Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3375.1(a), 3375.2, or the inmate is transferred to a subCase 3:18-cv-02289-JD Document 11 Filed 08/14/18 Page 2 of 5
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 Californi

a

facility, see id. § 3375.1(b). The regulations contain no substantive predicates or mandatory 

language with respect to administrative determinants: they “may be imposed by departmental 

officials.” Id. § 3375.2(b). It cannot be said, then, that an inmate with a specific classification 

score “can reasonably form an objective expectation” that he will be placed in a facility which 

corresponds with his classification score. See Kentucky Dep’t of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 

U.S. 454, 464-65 (1989) (finding no protected liberty interest in Kentucky regulations); Myron v. 

Terhune, 476 F.3d 716, 719 (9th Cir. 2007) (finding that although California regulations 

pertaining to security classification contained some mandatory language, they did not eliminate all 

discretion of prison officials, mandate a particular outcome, or impose an atypical and significant 

hardship on the inmate population and therefore the regulations do not give rise to a Fourteenth 

Amendment liberty interest). Because the statutory language does not meet the first prong of the 

Sandin test, no protected liberty interest requiring constitutional protection is created. 

The majority of the allegations and defendants in the complaint involve an incident that 

occurred in Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”) that lies in the Eastern District of California. 

Plaintiff previously filed a case in the Eastern District regarding these defendants and related 

claims. See Turner v. Administrative Security Personnel, Case No. 16-cv-1643 DAD SAB. That 

case was dismissed on February 15, 2018, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and for 

failure to state a claim. If plaintiff wishes to continue with the claims against these defendants and 

claims he must file a new action in the Eastern District. 

Plaintiff does present a few allegations regarding events that occurred in Salinas Valley 

State Prison which is in this district. Plaintiff alleges that a defendant issues him an RVR 

regarding the allegations that occurred at KVSP. He also alleges that different defendants 

prevented him from participating in the Family Visiting Program due to the RVR from the other 

prison. At a Unit Classification Committee hearing it was noted that that plaintiff had three 

serious RVRs in the last year, only one of which involved the incident that plaintiff references at 

KVSP. Plaintiff appealed the decision denying him the Family Visiting Program, but the appeals 

were denied. 

Plaintiff has failed to show that there was a due process violation in light of the legal 

Case 3:18-cv-02289-JD Document 11 Filed 08/14/18 Page 3 of 5
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 Californi

a

standards set forth above. In addition, changes in conditions relating to classification and 

reclassification do not generally set forth a due process violation. See Hernandez v. Johnston, 833 

F.2d 1316, 1318 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Moody v. Dagget, 429 U.S. 78, 88 n.9 (1976)) (no 

constitutional right to particular classification). The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend to 

provide more information regarding what transpired at Salinas Valley State Prison. Plaintiff 

should not include allegations concerning events that occurred at KVSP. Those claims must be 

presented in the Eastern District of California. 

CONCLUSION 

1. The motion for a Court order for plaintiff’s trust account statement (Docket No. 8) 

is DENIED because the paperwork has been provided. 

2. 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. Failure to 

amend within the designated time will result in the dismissal of this case. 

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: August 14, 2018 

 

JAMES DONATO 

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-02289-JD Document 11 Filed 08/14/18 Page 4 of 5
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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DEMAREAK J. TURNER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SALINAS VALLEY STATE PRISON, et 

al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 18-cv-02289-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 August 14, 2018, 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. 

Demareak J. Turner ID: K53249

Salinas Valley State Prison 

P.O. Box 1050 

Soledad, CA 93960 

Dated: August 14, 2018 

Susan Y. Soong 

Clerk, United States District Court 

By:________________________ 

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO 

Case 3:18-cv-02289-JD Document 11 Filed 08/14/18 Page 5 of 5