Jones v. Donovan, 3:17-cv-02454

Kevin W. Jones, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed § 1983 claims alleging he was "illegally housed" at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility and subjected to "brain videotape recording" and 24‑hour monitoring; he later was transferred to CSATF.
The Northern District transferred the case to the Southern District; the Southern District previously dismissed Jones’s original complaint and first amended complaint for failure to state a claim and granted leave to amend twice.
Jones filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC), motions for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction seeking transfer and access to legal materials, and an "Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus."
The magistrate/ district court conducted sua sponte screening under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b), assessing frivolousness and Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standards for a prisoner proceeding IFP.
The court found the SAC’s allegations (e.g., electronic "brain storming" and other extraordinary surveillance/torture claims) to be fanciful/irrational and thus frivolous, dismissed the SAC, denied the TRO/PI, dismissed the habeas petition without prejudice as duplicative, and ordered Jones to show cause why the dismissal should not be with prejudice and without leave to amend.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether SAC states a non‑frivolous § 1983 claim	Jones alleges illegal housing and ongoing electronic "brain videotape" monitoring and torture	Defendants argue (via screening standards) that allegations are implausible and fail to state a claim	SAC is frivolous and dismissed under §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)
Whether TRO / preliminary injunction should issue	Jones seeks emergency transfer and access to legal materials due to alleged imminent harm	Defendants argue Jones cannot show likelihood of success or irreparable harm; transfer moots prison‑specific relief	Motions for TRO and preliminary injunction denied (no likelihood of success; allegations speculative; relief moot after transfer)
Whether the habeas petition may proceed in this action	Jones filed an amended habeas petition challenging conviction/sentence/discipline	Defendants note identical petition is pending in Central District of California	Habeas petition dismissed without prejudice as duplicative of pending Central District action
Whether the action should be dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend	Jones has amended multiple times and contends original claims	Court considers whether frivolous classification bars further amendment	Court issued an Order to Show Cause; warned that if Jones fails to justify, case will be dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (leave to amend in pro se prisoner § 1983 cases and pleading standards)
Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2010) (screening standards for prisoner suits under § 1915A)
Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2014) (purpose of frivolous‑suit screening to avoid burdens on defendants)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (definition of frivolous and fanciful allegations in § 1915 context)
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992) (complaints that are irrational or wholly incredible are frivolous)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6) and limiting discovery when claims are conclusory)
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunctions requires likelihood of success and irreparable harm)
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973) (habeas corpus is proper avenue to challenge lawfulness of custody)
Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850 (9th Cir. 2003) (distinguishing § 1983 from habeas challenges to custody)
Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007) (prisoner‑specific injunctive relief typically moot after transfer)