Source: https://casetext.com/case/barren-v-harrington
Timestamp: 2020-03-28 21:15:17
Document Index: 96147292

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1291', '§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 801', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193 | Casetext Search + Citator
Barren v. Harrington
In the complaint, "[a] plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an individual was…
1.1 IFP Prisoner ComplaintsPursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 ("PLRA"), a district court…
2,975 Citing Cases
Full title:DONALD ROBIN BARREN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOM HARRINGTON…
Date published: Aug 26, 1998
152 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 1998)
holding that the standard for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e) parallels the standard in Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Summary of this case from Robinson v. Hamrick
No. 98-15277
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4.
Filed August 26, 1998
Donald Robin Barren, Carson City, Nevada, pro se, for the plaintiff-appellant.
D.C. No. CV-96-00546-HDM
Before: Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, Pamela Ann Rymer, and Michael Daly Hawkins, Circuit Judges.
[2] Barren appeals the district court's order sua sponte dismissing the third amended complaint of his § 1983 action filed in forma pauperis against various members of the Nevada state law enforcement community. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
The district court dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), holding that Barren had failed to present claims cognizable under § 1983. The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-134, §§ 801-10, 110 Stat. 1321, amended § 1915 to require the district court to dismiss in forma pauperis prisoner civil rights suits if the court determines that the action does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The language of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We join our sister circuits and employ the same de novo standard to review such dismissals as we use to review dismissals pursuant to 12(b)(6). See Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732, 733 (5th Cir. 1998); Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1489-90 (11th Cir. 1997); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997); Atkinson v. Bohn, 91 F.3d 1127, 1128 (8th Cir. 1996).
The statutory authority is clear: "the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (emphasis added).
Barren's complaint comprised four separate allegations. Count I alleged that the defendants had conspired to deny him his Fourth Amendment rights by bringing charges against him without probable cause, thus causing him to be incarcerated for 156 days before the charges were dismissed. Count II alleged that his due process rights were violated when he was held from May 1995 to October 1995 without a hearing. Count III alleged that he was denied the equal protection of the laws and was denied his First Amendment right of access to the courts when the defendants caused his brass slip requesting payment of a court ordered $5 filing fee to be denied. Count IV alleged that the appellant was denied access to the courts when his brass slip was denied, resulting in the dismissal of his lawsuit, Barren v. Harrington, CV-N-96-254DWH.
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment a plaintiff must show that the defendants acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against the plaintiff based upon membership in a protected class. Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239-40 (1976); Sischo-Nownejad v. Merced Community College Dist., 934 F.2d 1104, 1112 (9th Cir. 1991); Gutierrez v. Municipal Court of the South-East Judicial District, 838 F.2d 1031, 1047 (9th Cir. 1988) (purposeful discrimination is an essential element of an equal protection claim). Barren has not demonstrated that he is a member of a protected class.
To state a valid claim for denial of access to the courts, a plaintiff must allege an actual injury. Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 617 (1973). Barren has not alleged that he has suffered an actual injury.
concluding that a court must dismiss a complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
Summary of this case from Shetty v. Cisco Sys.
affirming sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim
Summary of this case from Arreola v. Cnty. of Fresno Pub. Defender's Office
Summary of this case from Tafoya v. City of Hanford
Summary of this case from Williams v. Stover
Summary of this case from Madera v. U.S. Dep't of State
Summary of this case from Burns v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
Summary of this case from Burns v. Soc. Sec. Admin.
affirming dismissal of § 1983 claim, where plaintiff "fail[ed] to allege any facts which would support his allegations that the defendants had conspired to violate his [civil] rights"
Summary of this case from New York v. San Ramon Valley Unified Sch. Dist.
Summary of this case from Collado v. Urambula
Summary of this case from Brown v. City of Clovis
Summary of this case from Hamilton v. Bagdesorian
Summary of this case from Bischoff v. Bodiford
Summary of this case from Mays v. Internal Revenue Serv.
Summary of this case from Beaton v. Walkenhorst'S
Summary of this case from Koch v. Price
Summary of this case from Fox v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
Summary of this case from Padilla v. Cal. Educ. Bd.
Summary of this case from Williams v. Taco Bell
Summary of this case from Lucero v. Pennella