Adkins v. Schultz

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants Dupree Lamont Adkins leave to proceed in forma pauperis and permits him to exceed the complaint page limit. On screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court finds cognizable Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection claims against Schultz, Richardson, and De Jesus and First Amendment retaliation claims against Hayden and Crawford, while finding other claims insufficiently pleaded. The court gives plaintiff the option to proceed on the screened claims or file an amended complaint and denies his motion to preserve AVSS footage.

Holdings

1. The complaint adequately stated Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection claims against Schultz, Richardson, and De Jesus because it alleged that they denied plaintiff treatment during the disciplinary process that was afforded to similarly situated white inmates under similar circumstances.
2. The complaint did not state sufficient equal-protection claims against Crawford, Pursey, or Hayden.
3. The complaint adequately stated First Amendment retaliation claims against Hayden and Crawford based on Hayden's issuance and Crawford's approval of the third rules violation report.
4. The complaint did not state sufficient First Amendment retaliation claims against De Jesus, Richardson, Pursey, or Schultz.
5. The complaint did not state a compensable due process claim because plaintiff did not allege loss of good-time credits and alleged that the first and second disciplinary findings were overturned through the appeals process.
6. The motion for discovery or preservation of AVSS footage was denied as premature and apparently unrelated to the incidents at issue.
7. Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and permission to exceed the twenty-five-page limit for e-filed complaints, subject to payment of the statutory filing fee through installments.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated a Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection claim against the defendants based on alleged disparate treatment of plaintiff and similarly situated white inmates.
2. Whether the complaint stated First Amendment retaliation claims based on the issuance or approval of rules violation reports after plaintiff filed grievances or threatened litigation.
3. Whether the complaint stated a due process claim based on alleged limitations on plaintiff's ability to present evidence in prison disciplinary proceedings.
4. Whether plaintiff's request to preserve or obtain AVSS footage should be granted at the screening stage.
5. Whether plaintiff should be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis and exceed the complaint page limit.

Disposition

other