Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00413/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00413-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Defendant
Tremile Saint Thompson
Plaintiff
Wright
Defendant

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TREMILE SAINT THOMPSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS AND

REHABILITATION, SGT. WRIGHT, 

Defendant. _______________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

)

No. C 10-0413 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On January 28, 2010, plaintiff, a California prisoner incarcerated at San Quentin State

Prison (“SQSP”) and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights action under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. By separate order filed concurrently herewith, plaintiff has been granted

leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

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. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its 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. See id.

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v.

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

Case 3:10-cv-00413-MMC Document 6 Filed 04/23/10 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

2

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 violation was committed by a person acting under the color

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

B. Plaintiff’s Claim

Plaintiff claims that on December 14, 2009, at SQSP, defendant Sgt. Wright made

sexually explicit and derogatory remarks over the prison’s public address system about

plaintiff’s transgender/transexual identity. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages in the amount

of ten million dollars for having been slandered and treated disrespectfully by Wright.

Plaintiff’s claim is subject to dismissal with prejudice as a matter of law, as allegations

of verbal harassment and abuse fail to state a claim cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See

Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 738 (9th Cir. 1997). Such dismissal will be without leave

to amend, as any amendment under the circumstances alleged herein would be futile. See

Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding leave to amend

need not be granted where amendment constitutes exercise in futility). 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the complaint is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice and

without leave to amend.

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 23, 2010 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00413-MMC Document 6 Filed 04/23/10 Page 2 of 2