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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?