Sean L. Casey, II v. Patrick Covello, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants Sean L. Casey, II leave to proceed in forma pauperis in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Following prisoner-complaint screening, the court permits a First Amendment retaliation claim against defendant Justinich to proceed and gives plaintiff 21 days to either proceed on that claim or file an amended complaint addressing deficiencies in the remaining claims and defendants.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis was granted because his declaration made the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
2. The complaint stated a claim on which plaintiff may proceed against defendant Justinich for retaliation for protected conduct in violation of the First Amendment.
3. The remaining claims and defendants did not presently state claims on which plaintiff could proceed, but plaintiff was given the option to file an amended complaint attempting to cure the deficiencies.
4. A § 1983 plaintiff must allege an affirmative link or connection between each defendant's actions and the claimed constitutional deprivation; vague and conclusory allegations of official participation are insufficient.
5. To state a cognizable due process claim arising from a prisoner disciplinary hearing that did not result in loss of good-conduct sentence credit, plaintiff must allege facts suggesting deprivation of a protected liberty interest, generally involving an atypical and significant hardship in relation to ordinary prison life.
6. A challenge to a prisoner disciplinary proceeding resulting in revocation of good-conduct sentence credit must be brought in a habeas corpus petition rather than a § 1983 action unless the revoked credit has been restored.
7. An equal-protection claim generally requires allegations of unequal treatment resulting from intentional or purposeful discrimination.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff qualified to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
2. Whether the complaint stated a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim against defendant Justinich.
3. Whether the remaining claims and defendants survived mandatory screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
4. What pleading requirements apply to plaintiff's potential due process, disciplinary-proceeding, and equal-protection claims.

Disposition

other