Jones v. Lemon
- Susan Van Keulen
- 5:22-cv-07202
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Terrell Jones v. T. Lemon, Judge Van Keulen allowed Jones’s equal-protection claim past screening and ordered service on the defendants.
Terrell Jones and defendants T. Lemon and Howard Mosely in the pending prisoner civil-rights case.
What happened
In Terrell Jones v. T. Lemon, Terrell Jones, a California prisoner representing himself, claimed that prison rules allowed female inmates to buy certain food items that he could not buy. He sued prison officials under a federal civil-rights law.
The court found that, when read broadly, Jones’s allegations stated a valid equal-protection claim based on alleged gender discrimination. The court did not decide whether the discrimination occurred or whether Jones should ultimately win.
Judge Susan Van Keulen ordered that T. Lemon and Howard Mosely be served with the complaint. The case was directed to continue, including the defendants’ filing of an answer and a later request for judgment or other case-ending relief.
The detailed version
- Jones v. Lemon · No. 5:22-cv-07202
- Susan Van Keulen
- Dec. 5, 2022
Background
Terrell Jones, a California prisoner housed at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed a civil-rights complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He sued Chief Deputy Warden T. Lemon and Associate Director Howard Mosely. The opinion states that Jones’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee was granted in a separate order.
Screening and Claim
Because Jones is a prisoner suing government officials, the court conducted the preliminary review required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That review requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also applied the rule that self-represented pleadings must be read liberally.
Jones alleged that prison policy prevented him from buying certain food items that female inmates were allowed to buy. He claimed that this was gender discrimination violating the Equal Protection Clause. The court concluded that, when liberally construed, the allegations stated a cognizable claim under § 1983 for an equal-protection violation.
Ruling and Next Steps
The court ordered that Defendants T. Lemon and Howard Mosely be served at Salinas Valley State Prison through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service process for prisoner civil-rights cases. The defendants were ordered to file the required magistrate-judge jurisdiction consent form and an answer.
The order also directed the defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion within 91 days after the order was issued, unless they informed the court that the case could not be resolved by summary judgment. The order allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and set other procedures for filings and service.
This was an order allowing the claim to proceed through screening and arranging service; it was not a final decision on the merits of Jones’s equal-protection claim. The order was signed by Susan Van Keulen, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.