Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00370/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00370-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mark Shawn Feathers
Plaintiff
Orlando Knox
Defendant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK SHAWN FEATHERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ORLANDO KNOX,

Defendant.

No. 2:20-cv-00370-CKD

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. As plaintiff has submitted a 

declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), his request will be granted. 

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the 

initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. 

Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding 

month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded by

the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s account 

exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 

Case 2:20-cv-00370-CKD Document 10 Filed 06/15/20 Page 1 of 7
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

I. Screening Standard

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 

“naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 

of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 

statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, a claim 

upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A 

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw 

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 

the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007), and 

construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 

U.S. 232, 236 (1974).

II. Allegations in the Complaint

At all times relevant to the allegations in the complaint, plaintiff was an inmate at the 

California Medical Facility in Vacaville. On August 14, 2019, plaintiff approached his work 

Case 2:20-cv-00370-CKD Document 10 Filed 06/15/20 Page 2 of 7
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

supervisor, Orlando Knox, and asked about receiving a raise. ECF No. 1 at 3. Defendant Knox 

responded by telling plaintiff that he was not going to give any Black inmates a raise in their pay. 

Id. Plaintiff alleges that defendant’s failure to authorize a pay raise based solely on his race 

violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. Based on these same 

facts, plaintiff also alleges a violation of the Rehabilitation Act. ECF No. 1 at 4. By way of 

relief, plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

III. Legal Standards

The Equal Protection Clause requires that persons who are similarly situated be treated 

alike. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985); Hartmann v. 

California Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1123 (9th Cir. 2013); Furnace v. Sullivan, 

705 F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2013); Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 891 (9th Cir. 2008). It 

applies both inside and outside of prison walls. Lee v. Washington, 390 U.S. 333, 333 (1968). 

To state a claim, plaintiff must show that defendant intentionally discriminated against him based 

on his membership in a protected class. Hartmann, 707 F.3d at 1123; Furnace, 705 F.3d at 1030; 

Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003); Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 

668, 686 (9th Cir. 2001). An individual’s race is a protected class for purposes of the Equal 

Protection Clause. See Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886) (emphasizing that the due 

process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment “are universal in their 

application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of 

race, of color, or of nationality....”); see also Johnson v. California, 125 S. Ct. 1141 (2005) 

(concluding that strict scrutiny standard of review applies to an equal protection challenge to a 

prison regulation based on race). 

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”) prohibits discrimination on the basis of 

one’s disability. Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002). “To establish a 

violation of § 504 of the RA, a plaintiff must show that (1) [he] is handicapped within the 

meaning of the RA; (2) [he] is otherwise qualified for the benefit or services sought; (3) [he] was 

denied the benefit or services solely by reason of [his] handicap; and (4) the program providing 

the benefit or services receives federal financial assistance.” Lovell, 303 F.3d at 1052.

Case 2:20-cv-00370-CKD Document 10 Filed 06/15/20 Page 3 of 7
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

4

IV. Analysis

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and, for the limited purposes of § 1915A 

screening, finds that it states a potentially cognizable Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection 

claim against defendant Knox. However, plaintiff has not stated a claim for relief under the 

Rehabilitation Act because there are no facts demonstrating intentional discrimination by reason 

of his disability which excluded him from participation in any program or activity that was 

federally funded. As a result, the Rehabilitation Act claim alleged in count two is dismissed with 

leave to amend. 

Plaintiff may elect to proceed on the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claim 

against defendant Knox; or, in the alternative, he may elect to amend his complaint to attempt to 

cure the deficiencies identified in this order. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th 

Cir. 2000) (en banc) (district courts must afford pro se litigants an opportunity to amend to correct 

any deficiency in their complaints). If plaintiff chooses to proceed on the claim found cognizable 

in this screening order, the court will construe this as a request to voluntarily dismiss the 

remaining claim against defendant Knox pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure.

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions 

complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v. 

Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, in his amended complaint, plaintiff must allege in 

specific terms how each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the 

claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). Furthermore, vague and conclusory 

allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of 

Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

Finally, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 

make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a 

general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 

Case 2:20-cv-00370-CKD Document 10 Filed 06/15/20 Page 4 of 7
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

5

F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no 

longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original 

complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 

V. Plain Language Summary for Pro Se Party

The following information is meant to explain this order in plain English and is not 

intended as legal advice. 

Some of the allegations in the complaint state claims for relief against the defendant, and 

some do not. You may choose to file an amended complaint to try to fix these problems. You 

must decide if you want to (1) proceed immediately on the Fourteenth Amendment Equal 

Protection claim against defendant Knox; or, (2) try to amend the complaint to fix the problems 

identified in this order with respect to the other claim. Once you decide, you must complete the 

attached Notice of Election form by checking only one of the appropriate boxes and return it to 

the court. 

Once the court receives the Notice of Election, it will issue an order telling you what you 

need to do next (i.e. file an amended complaint or wait for the defendants to be served with a 

copy of the complaint). If you do not return this Notice, the court will order service of the 

complaint only on the claim found cognizable in this screening order and will recommend 

dismissing the remaining claim with prejudice. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted.

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 

is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith.

3. Plaintiff has the option to proceed immediately on the Fourteenth Amendment Equal 

Protection claim against defendant Knox or plaintiff may choose to amend the complaint to fix 

the deficiencies identified in this order with respect to the remaining claim.

4. Within 21 days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete and return the 

Case 2:20-cv-00370-CKD Document 10 Filed 06/15/20 Page 5 of 7
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

6

attached Notice of Election form notifying the court whether he wants to proceed on the screened 

complaint or whether he wants time to file a first amended complaint.

5. If plaintiff fails to return the attached Notice of Election within the time provided, the 

court will construe this failure as consent to dismiss the deficient claim with prejudice and 

proceed only on the cognizable claim identified above. 

Dated: June 15, 2020

12/feat0370.option.docx 

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:20-cv-00370-CKD Document 10 Filed 06/15/20 Page 6 of 7
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK SHAWN FEATHERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ORLANDO KNOX,

Defendant.

No. 2:20-cv-00370-CKD

NOTICE OF ELECTION

Check only one option:

_____ Plaintiff wants to proceed immediately on the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection 

claim against defendant Knox. Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the remaining claim; or,

_____ Plaintiff wants time to file a first amended complaint.

DATED: 

____________________ 

Plaintiff

_______________________________ 

Case 2:20-cv-00370-CKD Document 10 Filed 06/15/20 Page 7 of 7