U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Donald Robin Barren, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Tom Harrington, Defendant-Appellee

98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6618, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9173 Donald Robin Barren v. Tom Harrington

152 F.3d 1193 · 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6618 · 98 Daily Journal DAR 9173

Decided August 26, 1998

Good LawGood law: 66 citing cases carry treatments with no negative treatment.

Download PDF

SummaryHoldingsLater treatmentOpinion of the Court

Summary

The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo the sua sponte dismissal of Barren’s in forma pauperis civil-rights complaint and affirmed. It concluded that the complaint did not allege facts showing the defendants’ personal involvement in the asserted violations, did not establish a protected-class basis for the equal-protection claim, and did not allege actual injury from the denial of court access.

Holdings

  • Standard of review for dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). A dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is reviewed de novo, the same standard used for a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).
  • Factual allegations and personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violations. Barren failed to state claims based on the alleged conspiracy and due-process violation because he did not allege supporting facts showing defendants’ personal involvement or identify specific proceedings in which his due-process rights were violated.
  • Equal-protection claim. Barren failed to state an equal-protection claim because he did not demonstrate that he belonged to a protected class or allege the required purposeful discrimination based on protected-class membership. *1195
  • Denial of access to the courts. Barren failed to state an access-to-courts claim because he did not allege that the denial of his filing-fee requests caused an actual injury. *1195

Written by LawDiver's case analysis.

How later courts treated this case

1,692 opinions cite this case

  • Cited

    Sullivan v. State of Washington. The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity, officer, or employee.

  • Cited

    Gonzalez v. Agents of Washington Corrections Center. The Court must “dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint: (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.”

  • Cited

    Jeffery Dana Sparks v. Dusti Hunter, Kaycie Thompson, Judett Ortiz, Erin Reyes, and Oregon Department of Corrections. cites Barren for the requirement that the adverse action must not advance any legitimate penological goal

  • Cited

    Carmen Martinez v. Canyon County Jail Medical Staff, Canyon County Sheriff’s Office. Cited for dismissal authority under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B).

  • Cited

    Aaron Justin Fulk v. John Does 1-3. Cited for the statutory screening standard

See all citing casesFilter by court, year and treatment in LawDiver. Free, no login.

In this case

Opinion of the Court

ORDER

Barren appeals the district court’s order sua sponte dismissing the third amended complaint of his § 1983 action filed in forma pauperis against various members of the Nevada state law enforcement community. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

The district court dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), holding that Barren had failed to present claims cognizable under § 1983. The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-134, §§ 801-10, 110 Stat. 1321, amended § 1915 to require the district court to dismiss in forma pauperis prisoner civil rights suits if the court determines that the action does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The language of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We join our sister circuits and employ the same de novo standard to review such dismissals as we use to review dismissals pursuant to 12(b)(6). See Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732, 733 (5th Cir.1998); Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1489-90 (11th Cir.1997); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir.1997); Atkinson v. Bohn, 91 F.3d 1127, 1128 (8th Cir.1996).

The statutory authority is clear: “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that ... the action or appeal ... fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (emphasis added).

Barren’s complaint comprised four separate allegations. Count I alleged that the defendants had conspired to deny him his Fourth Amendment rights by bringing charges against him without probable cause, thus causing him to be incarcerated for 156 days before the charges were dismissed. Count II alleged that his due process rights were violated when he was held from May 1995 to October 1995 without a hearing. Count III alleged that he was denied the equal protection of the laws and was denied his First Amendment right of access to the courts when the defendants caused his brass slip requesting payment of a court ordered $5 filing fee to be denied. Count IV alleged that the appellant was denied access to the courts when his brass slip was denied, resulting in the dismissal of his lawsuit, Barren v. Harrington, CV-N-96-254-DWH.

A plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights. Liability under § 1983 must be based on the personal involvement of the defendant. May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir.1980). Barren has failed to meet this standard by failing to allege any facts which would support his allegations that the defendants had conspired to violate his Fourth Amendment rights, and by failing to allege any specific proceedings in which his due process rights were violated.

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment a plaintiff must show that the defendants acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against the plaintiff based upon membership in a protected class. Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239-40, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976); Sischo-Nownejad v. Merced Community College Dist., 934 F.2d *1195 1104, 1112 (9th Cir.1991); Gutierrez v. Municipal Court of the Southeast Judicial District, 838 F.2d 1031, 1047 (9th Cir.1988) (purposeful discrimination is an essential element of an equal protection claim). Barren has not demonstrated that he is a member of a protected class.

To state a valid claim for denial of access to the courts, a plaintiff must allege an actual injury. Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 617, 93 S.Ct. 1146, 35 L.Ed.2d 536 (1973). Barren has not alleged that he has suffered an actual injury.

Barren has offered no more than concluso-ry allegations that the defendants were involved in a conspiracy to deprive him of his constitutional rights. Consequently, the district court did not err in dismissing this third amended complaint.

AFFIRMED.

Research the next case the same way

Everything on this page, for any of 10 million opinions.

  • Search every way lawyers do

    Citation, case name, boolean with /s and /p, or a plain-English question. Free, no login.

  • See what still holds

    Every case shows how later courts treated it: followed, distinguished, limited or overruled.

  • Check a brief before you file

    CiteCheck reads your brief and flags cites that don't exist, don't match, or aren't good law.

  • Use it where you work

    The LawDiver connector brings real caselaw into Claude, ChatGPT and Cursor. An API for builders.

Try CiteCheck free or create a free account for AI research and saved folders

Related landmark cases

All landmark cases·Browse by topic