Shatswell

Shatswell v. Taylor

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaFebruary 10, 20203:19-cv-06883California767 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 DANNY MICHAEL SHATSWELL, Case No. 19-cv-06883-EMC

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

v. RECONSIDERATION

J. TAYLOR, et al., Docket No. 12 Defendants.

12 13 Last month, the Court dismissed this action because the complaint’s allegations that Plaintiff improperly had been removed from a college program and denied the opportunity to earn a second G.E.D. failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Docket No. 10. The Court explained that a § 1983 claim was not stated because there is no federal constitutional right to an education and, even if there is such a right, Plaintiff did not state a factually plausible claim that he was deprived of Educational Merit Credits (available upon earning a college degree) because he had not taken enough classes that it was at all likely that he could obtain a degree in short time available before he finished his prison term – i.e., given that his transcript reflected he…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.