Isaiah Washington v. J. Cavagnolo, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants Isaiah Washington leave to proceed in forma pauperis but dismisses his § 1983 complaint with leave to amend. The court concludes that the alleged violation of California Code of Regulations title 15 does not create a private right of action and that the complaint lacks supporting allegations for the asserted due process and Eighth Amendment claims. The court recommends denying Washington's motion for injunctive relief because he has not shown likely success on the merits or irreparable harm.

Holdings

1. Violations of California Code of Regulations title 15 do not create a private right of action, and plaintiff's complaint alleged no additional facts supporting his due process or Eighth Amendment claims.
2. Any amended complaint must comply with Rule 8(a), plead facts rather than legal conclusions, name only defendants who personally participated in the alleged constitutional deprivation, and avoid unrelated claims against different defendants.
3. Plaintiff was not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief because he had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, a likelihood of irreparable harm, a favorable balance of equities, or that an injunction would serve the public interest.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on alleged violations of California Code of Regulations title 15, section 3312(b), due process, or the Eighth Amendment.
2. Whether the complaint satisfied the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and the plausibility standard.
3. Whether plaintiff was entitled to preliminary injunctive relief prohibiting a prison transfer.

Disposition

other