×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Prisoner's Dismissed § 1983 Complaint Reversed in Part
Prisoner's Dismissed § 1983 Complaint Reversed in Part
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in part a California state
prisoner's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint dismissed by a federal district court.
California prisoner Alvin Ronnel Ross sued state prison officials under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his Fourteenth Amendment due process
rights. The federal district court dismissed with prejudice, and Ross appealed.
The Court of Appeals did not recite the facts of the case. The court held,
however, that Ross sufficiently pled a First Amendment retaliation claim
under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dismissal of the
claim, therefore, was error.
The procedural due process claim regarding access to the prison canteen was
properly dismissed because Ross failed to allege a liberty or property
interest. The substantive due process claim was foreclosed by Patel v.
Penman, 103 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 1996). The appeals court declined to address
a supplemental jurisdiction question.
The district court dismissal was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and
remanded for further proceedings. This is not a ruling on the merits of the
surviving claim. This case is published in the Federal Appendix and is
subject to rules governing unpublished cases. See: Ross v. McCoy, 62
Fed.Appx. 198 (9th Cir. 2003).
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in part a California state
prisoner's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint dismissed by a federal district court.
California prisoner Alvin Ronnel Ross sued state prison officials under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his Fourteenth Amendment due process
rights. The federal district court dismissed with prejudice, and Ross appealed.
The Court of Appeals did not recite the facts of the case. The court held,
however, that Ross sufficiently pled a First Amendment retaliation claim
under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dismissal of the
claim, therefore, was error.
The procedural due process claim regarding access to the prison canteen was
properly dismissed because Ross failed to allege a liberty or property
interest. The substantive due process claim was foreclosed by Patel v.
Penman, 103 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 1996). The appeals court declined to address
a supplemental jurisdiction question.
The district court dismissal was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and
remanded for further proceedings. This is not a ruling on the merits of the
surviving claim. This case is published in the Federal Appendix and is
subject to rules governing unpublished cases. See: Ross v. McCoy, 62
Fed.Appx. 198 (9th Cir. 2003).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Ross v. McCoy
| Year | 2003 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 62 Fed.Appx. 198 (9th Cir. 2003). |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
ALVIN RONNEL ROSS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. VICKIE MCCOY; RON SUMABAT, Defendants - Appellees.
No. 02-15281
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
62 Fed. Appx. 198; 2003 U.S. App.
April 10, 2003, Argued and Submitted, San Francisco, California
April 28, 2003, Filed
NOTICE: [**1] RULES OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. D.C. No. CV-99-06324-REC. Robert E. Coyle, Chief Judge, Presiding.
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
COUNSEL: For ALVIN RONNEL ROSS, Plaintiff - Appellant: Carter C. White, Esq., UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Tamera Wong, U.C. Davis School of Law, Davis, CA.
Alvin Ronnel Ross, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Corcoran, CA.
For VICKIE MCCOY, RON SUMABAT, Defendants - Appellees: James M. Humes, Esq., CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL, Anya Binsacca, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, San Francisco, CA.
JUDGES: Before: NOONAN, McKEOWN, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
OPINION:
[*198] MEMORANDUM *
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[**2]
Alvin Ronnel Ross, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court's judgment dismissing with prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and due process violations. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Ross sufficiently pled a First Amendment retaliation claim under the requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 680 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that Rule 8(a)(2) "does not require a claimant to set out in detail the facts upon which he bases his claim[,]" quoting Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168, 122 L. Ed. 2d 517, 113 S. Ct. 1160 (1993) (alterations in original)). Thus, the district court erred in dismissing his retaliation claim.
The district court properly dismissed Ross's procedural due process claim because he failed to allege that access to the prison canteen implicates a liberty or property interest, see Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 132 L. Ed. 2d 418, 115 S. Ct. 2293 (1995), or that he was denied the [**3] opportunity to file a grievance against McCoy pursuant to the prison grievance procedures. Indeed, he did utilize the grievance process.
To the extent that Ross alleged a substantive due process violation, the claim is foreclosed by our precedent. See Patel v. Penman, 103 F.3d 868, 874 (9th Cir. 1996).
In light of our decision on the retaliation claim, we decline to address the supplemental jurisdiction issue, leaving that issue to the district court in the first instance.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED. Appellant Ross shall be awarded costs on appeal.
No. 02-15281
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
62 Fed. Appx. 198; 2003 U.S. App.
April 10, 2003, Argued and Submitted, San Francisco, California
April 28, 2003, Filed
NOTICE: [**1] RULES OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. D.C. No. CV-99-06324-REC. Robert E. Coyle, Chief Judge, Presiding.
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
COUNSEL: For ALVIN RONNEL ROSS, Plaintiff - Appellant: Carter C. White, Esq., UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Tamera Wong, U.C. Davis School of Law, Davis, CA.
Alvin Ronnel Ross, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Corcoran, CA.
For VICKIE MCCOY, RON SUMABAT, Defendants - Appellees: James M. Humes, Esq., CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL, Anya Binsacca, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, San Francisco, CA.
JUDGES: Before: NOONAN, McKEOWN, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
OPINION:
[*198] MEMORANDUM *
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[**2]
Alvin Ronnel Ross, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court's judgment dismissing with prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and due process violations. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Ross sufficiently pled a First Amendment retaliation claim under the requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 680 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that Rule 8(a)(2) "does not require a claimant to set out in detail the facts upon which he bases his claim[,]" quoting Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168, 122 L. Ed. 2d 517, 113 S. Ct. 1160 (1993) (alterations in original)). Thus, the district court erred in dismissing his retaliation claim.
The district court properly dismissed Ross's procedural due process claim because he failed to allege that access to the prison canteen implicates a liberty or property interest, see Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 132 L. Ed. 2d 418, 115 S. Ct. 2293 (1995), or that he was denied the [**3] opportunity to file a grievance against McCoy pursuant to the prison grievance procedures. Indeed, he did utilize the grievance process.
To the extent that Ross alleged a substantive due process violation, the claim is foreclosed by our precedent. See Patel v. Penman, 103 F.3d 868, 874 (9th Cir. 1996).
In light of our decision on the retaliation claim, we decline to address the supplemental jurisdiction issue, leaving that issue to the district court in the first instance.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED. Appellant Ross shall be awarded costs on appeal.