Thompson v. Jeung
- Charles Breyer
- 3:20-cv-04241
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Thompson v. Jeung, Judge Illman dismissed the complaint with leave to amend and denied counsel because it lacked enough factual detail.
Michael A. Thompson’s claims were dismissed with leave to amend, and his request for appointed counsel was denied. The order concerns his case against Jeung.
What happened
In Michael A. Thompson v. Jeung, Thompson, representing himself, filed a civil-rights complaint under a federal law allowing claims for constitutional violations by state officials. He alleged sexual harassment, retaliation for protected conduct, and an assault by another inmate after he filed a grievance.
The court said the complaint did not provide enough facts to plausibly support the claims. It required more information about the alleged sexual harassment, the injuries from the assault, and whether Thompson was awaiting trial or had been convicted.
The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend and gave Thompson 28 days to file an amended complaint. It also denied his request for a lawyer. Judge Illman signed the order.
The detailed version
- Thompson v. Jeung · No. 3:20-cv-04241
- Charles Breyer
- Aug. 18, 2020
Background
Michael A. Thompson filed a civil-rights complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee and had consented to a magistrate judge handling the case. Thompson alleged that Jeung sexually harassed him, retaliated against him for protected conduct, and initiated an assault against him by another inmate after Thompson filed a grievance.
Court’s analysis
The court conducted the required early review of a prisoner’s complaint. It explained that a complaint must contain enough factual information to give the defendant fair notice of the claims and to make entitlement to relief plausible, rather than relying only on labels or conclusions.
The court described the legal standards for sexual-harassment claims under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, First Amendment retaliation claims, and claims alleging that a prison official failed to protect an inmate. The court noted that the standards can differ depending on whether the person is a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner.
The court concluded that Thompson’s brief complaint needed more information and factual allegations. In particular, he had to provide more details about the alleged sexual harassment, describe his injuries from the assault, and state whether he was a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner.
Motion to appoint counsel
Thompson also asked the court to appoint a lawyer. The court explained that there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in an ordinary civil case and that appointment may be requested only in exceptional circumstances. It found that Thompson had adequately presented his claims and that the legal issues were not complex, so exceptional circumstances were not present.
Disposition
The court denied Thompson’s Motion to Appoint Counsel. It also dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. The amended complaint had to be filed within 28 days, use the case caption and number, state “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page, include all claims Thompson wished to pursue, and not incorporate the original complaint by reference. The order stated that failure to amend within the specified time would result in dismissal of the action. Judge Robert M. Illman signed the order.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.