Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 17, 2020

Quair v. Brown

Judge
James Donato
Docket
3:20-cv-00716
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
Civil RightsSection 1983Pro Se
In one sentence

In Quair v. Brown, Judge Donato dismissed the prisoner’s civil-rights complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim.

Who this affects

David Sabino Quair’s civil-rights action against Gilbert H. Brown was dismissed with prejudice, ending this case.

What happened

In Quair v. Brown, David Sabino Quair, a state prisoner representing himself, sued Gilbert H. Brown under a federal civil-rights law. Quair said he had been transferred from prison to Santa Clara County Jail because of warrants, but his court documents contained incorrect identifying information.

Quair sought prosecution of the defendants and release from what he called false incarceration. The court found that these allegations did not state a valid claim. It said that challenges to his incarceration had to be pursued through the habeas petitions he had already filed.

Judge James Donato ruled that no amendment could fix the complaint’s problems and dismissed the action with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The clerk was directed to close the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Quair v. Brown · No. 3:20-cv-00716
Judge
James Donato
Date
Apr. 17, 2020

Background

David Sabino Quair, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee. Because Quair was a prisoner seeking relief from a governmental entity or officer, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Claims and Analysis

Quair alleged that he had been transferred from prison to Santa Clara County Jail for warrants, but that his court documents listed the wrong booking number, birthdate, and Social Security number. He sought prosecution of the defendants and an end to what he described as false incarceration.

The court explained that a § 1983 claim requires an alleged violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by a person acting under state law. It concluded that Quair’s allegations failed to state a claim. To the extent Quair was challenging his incarceration itself, the court said he had to pursue the habeas petitions he had already filed. The court also noted that he was already challenging the conditions of his confinement in several other civil-rights cases in the same court.

Disposition

Judge James Donato held that no amount of amendment could cure the complaint’s deficiencies. The action was dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim, and the clerk was requested to close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.