Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-00206/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-00206-0/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

1

 Garrett has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. See Dkt. No. 1 at 4.

2

 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

Case No. C 16-0206 PSG (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ROCCI FRANK GARRETT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SANTA CLARA COUNTY JAIL,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C 16-0206 PSG (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Rocci Frank Garrett, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 The court has granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis in a separate order. For the reasons stated below, the court dismisses the complaint and

gives Garrett leave to amend to specify his claims for relief.

I. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review 

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.2

 In its

Case 5:16-cv-00206-PSG Document 4 Filed 03/25/16 Page 1 of 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

3

 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 

4

 See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

5

 See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

6

 See 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). 

7

 See Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2013). 

Case No. C 16-0206 PSG (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

2

review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that 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.3

 Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally

construed.4 

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.5

B. Garrett’s Claims

Garrett alleges that he is being denied access to some unspecified treatment program of

which the “courts” approved for him. Garrett has seen other inmates with “more extreme case

factors and backgrounds” be allowed into the program, and he continues to be denied. Garrett

believes his prohibition from the program is discriminatory. Garrett names as the sole defendant,

the Santa Clara County Jail. 

Garrett’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. As currently pled, Garrett’s

complaint fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. To the extent Garrett means to raise an

equal protection claim, he fails to do so. 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.6

 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.7 The class must be comprised of similarly

Case 5:16-cv-00206-PSG Document 4 Filed 03/25/16 Page 2 of 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

8

 See 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). 

9

 See Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978).

10 See Board of Cty. Comm’rs. of Bryan Cty. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997). 

11 See Plumeau v. School Dist. #40 County of Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Case No. C 16-0206 PSG (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

3

situated persons so that the factor motivating the alleged discrimination can be identified.8

Garrett does not identify any class of prisoners to whom he belongs, nor does he identify a group

of prisoners similarly situated to him, and from whom he was treated differently. In response to

Garrett’s administrative appeal, jail officials explained to Garrett that he was denied participation

in the out-of-custody phase of the Custody Alternative Supervision Program because of the

serious nature of Garrett’s charges, but he was still eligible to participate in the in-custody phase. 

In addition, Garrett has not named any individual officers who are liable for the alleged

violation. Instead, Garrett names the Santa Clara County Jail. Local governments, such as the

Santa Clara County Jail are “persons” subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 where official

policy or custom causes a constitutional tort.9

 However, a city or county may not be held

vicariously liable for the unconstitutional acts of its employees under the theory of respondeat

superior.10 To impose municipal liability under Section 1983 for a violation of constitutional

rights, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the plaintiff possessed a constitutional right of which he or

she was deprived; (2) that the municipality had a policy; (3) that this policy amounts to

deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s constitutional rights; and (4) that the policy is the

moving force behind the constitutional violation.11 Here, Garrett has not alleged sufficient facts

to state a municipal liability claim against the Santa Clara County Jail. Thus, the Santa Clara

County Jail is DISMISSED. Garrett must name the proper individual defendants whom he

alleges are liable for violating his constitutional rights.

As the complaint currently reads, Garrett has not stated a cognizable claim against any

defendant. However, if Garrett believes that he can cure the deficiencies addressed above, he

may amend his complaint to do so.

Case 5:16-cv-00206-PSG Document 4 Filed 03/25/16 Page 3 of 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

12 London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981). 

13 See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Case No. C 16-0206 PSG (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

4

II. CONCLUSION

The court orders as follows:

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Garrett shall file an

AMENDED COMPLAINT within thirty days from the date this order is filed. The amended

complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (C 16-0206 PSG

(PR)) and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Garrett may not incorporate

material from the prior complaint by reference. Failure to file an amended complaint within

thirty days and in accordance with this order will result in a finding that further leave to amend

would be futile, and this action will be dismissed.

2. Garrett is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 

“[A] plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged

in the amended complaint.”12 Defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer

defendants.13 

3. It is Garrett’s responsibility to prosecute this case. He 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: PAUL S. GREWAL 

United States Magistrate Judge

3/25/2016

Case 5:16-cv-00206-PSG Document 4 Filed 03/25/16 Page 4 of 4