92 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 1996), 95-16261, Hoke v. Arpaio
|Citation:||92 F.3d 1192|
|Party Name:||Robert Allen HOKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joe ARPAIO, Sheriff, in his official capacity; Richard Romley, County Attorney for the County of Maricopa; Betsey Bayless, Supervisor, County of Maricopa; Robert Richards; Frank R. Waelde, Captain; Donald Moose, Captain, Madison Street Jail, Defendants-Appellees.|
|Case Date:||August 05, 1996|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Submitted July 29, 1996. [*]
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, No. CV-95-00871-RGS/SLV; Roger G. Strand, District Judge, Presiding.
Before: HUG, Chief Judge; SCHROEDER and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Robert Allen Hoke, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.
We review the district court's dismissal before service of process for abuse of discretion. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992); Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 584 (9th Cir.1995). The district court may dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) if it "lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
In his complaint, Hoke alleged that defendants conspired to violate the constitutional rights of Arizona state pretrial detainees and prisoners. Section 1985(3) applies only where there is some racial or other class-based discriminatory animus behind the actions of the conspirators. Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88 (1971). To state a claim under section 1985(3) for a non-race-based class, " 'we require either that the courts have designated the class in question a suspect or quasi-suspect classification requiring more exacting scrutiny or that Congress has indicated through legislation that the class required special protection.' " Sever v. Alaska Pulp Corp., 978 F.2d 1529, 1536 (9th Cir.1992) (quoting Schultz v. Sundberg, 759 F.2d 714, 718 (9th Cir.1985).
Because pretrial detainees and prisoners...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP