Quair v. San Mateo County Jail
- James Donato
- 3:19-cv-08463
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Quair v. San Mateo County Jail, Judge Donato dismissed the complaint with leave to amend because it lacked specific defendants and facts showing harm.
David S Quair’s complaint was dismissed at the prisoner-screening stage, while he was given an opportunity to amend his access-to-the-courts claim; the named defendants were San Mateo County Jail and other defendants identified in the caption as “et al.”
What happened
In David S Quair v. San Mateo County Jail, et al., David S Quair, a state prisoner representing himself, claimed that defendants obstructed his access to the courts and that he did not receive legal mail.
The court found that these allegations were too general because Quair did not identify specific defendants or explain how the alleged problems caused actual harm to a non-frivolous claim about his conviction or confinement. The court dismissed the complaint but allowed him to file an amended complaint.
Judge James Donato ordered Quair to file the amended complaint within 28 days and include all claims he wanted to pursue. The court warned that failing to amend on time would result in dismissal of the case.
The detailed version
- Quair v. San Mateo County Jail · No. 3:19-cv-08463
- James Donato
- Mar. 9, 2020
Background
David S Quair, identified as a state prisoner, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. He had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. Quair alleged that defendants obstructed his access to the courts and that he had not received legal mail.
Court’s analysis
Because Quair was a prisoner suing a governmental entity or government personnel, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Screening requires the court to identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also applied the rule that a complaint must contain enough factual detail to make a claim plausible, rather than relying on labels or conclusions.
The court explained that a prisoner claiming denial of access to the courts must show an inadequacy in the prison’s legal-access program and an actual injury. The prisoner must identify how the inadequacy hindered a non-frivolous claim concerning the conviction or conditions of confinement. The court found that Quair’s allegations were conclusory, provided no additional information, and did not identify any specific defendants.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Quair was ordered to file an amended complaint within 28 days of the order, using the required caption and case number and placing the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. The court stated that the amended complaint would replace the original complaint and must include every claim Quair wished to pursue; he could not incorporate the original complaint by reference. The court also stated that failure to amend within the designated time would result in dismissal of the case. Judge James Donato further stated that Quair had to keep the court informed of any address change and comply with court orders.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.