Cook v. Roque

Filing 10

ORDER dismissing complaint with leave to amend. Signed by Judge Nandor J. Vadas on April 23, 2014. (njvlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

EUREKA DIVISION

6
7

ERIC DARNELL COOK,
No. C 14-1234 NJV (PR)
Plaintiff,

8

P. ROQUE,
Defendant.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND

v.

9

/
12
13
14

Plaintiff has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has
been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

15
16
17

DISCUSSION
A.

Standard of Review
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

18

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

19

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and

20

dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

21

be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at

22

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

23

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

24

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of

25

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary;

26

the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the

27

grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations

28

omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual

1

allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment] to relief'

2

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

3

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief

4

above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)

5

(citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is

6

plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has recently explained

7

the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the

8

framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are

9

well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine
whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

679 (2009).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

12
13

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was

14

violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the

15

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

16

B.

17
18

Legal Claims
Plaintiff seeks to be paid for several months of working at his prison without

compensation.

19

Prisoners have no constitutional right to be paid for their services. Serra v. Lappin,

20

600 F.3d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Piatt v. MacDougall, 773 F.2d 1032, 1035 (9th

21

Cir. 1985) (no deprivation of liberty interest when prisoner forced to work without pay, nor

22

does requiring such work subject prisoner to involuntary servitude in violation of the

23

Thirteenth Amendment)). There is also no constitutional right to a job or rehabilitation in

24

prison. Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1254-55 (9th Cir. 1982) (no right to job); Rizzo v.

25

Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 530-31 (9th Cir. 1985) (no right to vocational course for

26

rehabilitation). Whatever liberty or property interests inhere in prison employment are the

27

product of state law. Lyon v. Farrier, 727 F.2d 766, 769 (8th Cir. 1984); cf. Sandin v.

28
2

1

Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 477-87 (1995) (where state statutes or regulations narrowly restrict

2

power of prison officials to deprive inmates of interest that is of "real substance,"

3

deprivation of interest must meet requirements of procedural due process).

4

Further, prisoners generally are not protected by federal or state labor laws, since

such protections. See Morgan v. MacDonald, 41 F.3d 1291, 1293 (9th Cir. 1994) (prisoner

7

working under state statute requiring 40 hours weekly work or training not "employee"

8

under FLSA); see also Hale v. Arizona, 993 F.2d 1387, 1392-98 (9th Cir.) (en banc)

9

(prisoners working under state program requiring hard labor not "employees"), cert. denied,

10

510 U.S. 946 (1993); Castle v. Eurofresh, Inc., 731 F.3d 901, 908 (9th Cir. 2013) (prisoner

11
For the Northern District of California

the economic realities of prison employment seldom make them "employees" entitled to

6

United States District Court

5

working for prison contractor not employee under ADA because his labor belongs to state).

12

Other than stating that he wishes to be compensated for prior work, plaintiff provides

13

no other details in the complaint and identifies no defendants, instead he simply attaches

14

exhibits. From his exhibits it appears that plaintiff was transferred to a different yard and

15

lost his job as a porter. As described above, plaintiff has no right to a particular prison job

16

or to be paid. Plaintiff will be provided one opportunity to amend to provide more

17

information regarding his claims and to identify specific defendants. Simply attaching

18

exhibits is insufficient.

19

CONCLUSION

20

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the

21

standards set forth above. The amended complaint must be filed within twenty-eight (28)

22

days of the date this order is filed and must include the caption and civil case number used

23

in this order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an

24

amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all

25

the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.

26

1992). He may not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to

27

amend within the designated time will result in the dismissal of this action.

28
3

1

2. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the
court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed

3

“Notice of Change of Address,” and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion.

4

Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to

5

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

11
For the Northern District of California

ER

H

United States District Court

J

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

R NIA
FO

RT

10

. Vadas

ndor J
udge Na

NO

9

NANDOR J. VADAS
United States Magistrate Judge

LI

8

Dated: April 23, 2014.

A

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNIT
ED

6

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

S

2

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C