Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20101115_0001831.SCA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-05-24 08:28:48
Document Index: 471369367

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

HUBERT DYMITR HARASZEWSKI, CDCR #AC-2622, PLAINTIFF,
ORDER: (1) DISMISSING CLAIMS FROM FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b) & 1915A(b); AND (2) DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL TO EFFECT SERVICE OF AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3) & 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)
On March 12, 2010, Hubert Dymitr Haraszewski ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the Kern Valley State Prison located in Delano, California, and proceeding pro se, submitted a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP but simultaneously dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b) & 1915A(b). See Apr. 20, 2010 Order at 5-6. Plaintiff was granted leave to file a First Amended Complaint in order to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court. Id. at 6. Plaintiff then requested several extensions of time to file a First Amended Complaint which were granted by the Court. On October 6, 2010, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint ("FAC").
Plaintiff claims that after he received his "life sentence" he was segregated in the jail but claims that no one else in the jail serving a life sentence was segregated and thus, his right to equal protection under the laws was violated. See FAC at 6. The "Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment commands that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,' which is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike." City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). In order to state a claim under § 1983 alleging violations of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Plaintiff must allege facts which demonstrate that he is a member of a protected class. See Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 323 (1980) (indigents); see also City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 440-41 (1985) (listing suspect classes). In this matter, Plaintiff has neither sufficiently plead that he is a member of a suspect class nor has he plead adequate facts to demonstrate that Defendants acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against him based upon his membership in a protected class. See Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1154 (1999).
Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff's allegations are insufficient to prove invidious discriminatory intent. Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265 (1977). Accordingly, Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claims are dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted.
However, as to the remaining claims in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff's claims are now sufficiently pleaded to survive the sua sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to U.S. Marshal service on his behalf. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-27; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) ("The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in [IFP] cases."); FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3) ("[T]he court may order that service be made by a United States marshal or deputy marshal ... if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915."). Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that "the sua sponte screening and dismissal procedure is cumulative of, and not a substitute for, any subsequent Rule 12(b)(6) motion that [a defendant] may choose to bring." Teahan v. Wilhelm, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1115, 1119 (S.D. Cal. 2007).
1. Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claims are dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 ...