Patterson v. US Bank

Filing 8

ORDER Re 7 First Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 11/12/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Legal Help Center Flyer)(emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/12/2010)

Patterson v. US Bank

Doc. 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. US BANK, Defendant. ___________________________________/ Previously, the Court granted Plaintiff Samuel Patterson's application to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim for relief. See Docket No. 6 (order). The Court gave Mr. Patterson an opportunity to file an amended complaint to address the deficiencies identified by the Court. Mr. Patterson has now filed an amended complaint. Having considered the contents of that complaint, the Court hereby dismisses the case with prejudice. I. DISCUSSION SAMUEL PATTERSON, JR., Plaintiff, No. C-10-4256 EMC ORDER RE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Docket No. 7) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

As the Court previously noted, the gist of Mr. Patterson's complaint is that US Bank violated his constitutional rights and, because Mr. Patterson is asserting that his constitutional rights have been violated, he is implicitly asserting a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 "To establish a §

1

Section 1983 provides in relevant part as follows: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . . .

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that an individual acting under the color of state law deprived him of a right, privilege, or immunity protected by the United States Constitution or federal law." See Levine v. City of Alameda, 525 F.3d 903, 905 (9th Cir. 2008) (emphasis added). A private actor is deemed to be a person acting under color of state law under limited circumstances only ­ namely, "where there is `significant' state involvement in the action." Franklin v. Fox, 312 F.3d 423, 444 (9th Cir. 2002). As indicated by the above language, there is no precise formula for determining whether a private party is a state actor, but the Supreme Court has emphasized that "state action may be found if, though only if, there is such a `close nexus between the State and the challenged action' that seemingly private behavior `may be fairly treated as that of the State itself.'" Brentwood Acad. v. Tennessee Secondary Sch. Ath. Ass'n, 531 U.S. 288, 295 (2001). In his amended complaint, Mr. Patterson asserts that US Bank should be deemed a person acting under color of state law because "the State gave US Bank the right to operate in its State . . . and US Bank is under Federal control." FAC at 1. This argument is unavailing in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991 (1982). There, the Supreme Court stated that "`[the] mere fact that a business is subject to state regulation does not by itself convert its action into that of the State.'" Id. at 1004; see also Cooper v. United States Postal Serv., 577 F.3d 479, 492 (2d Cir. 2009) (stating that "`[a] finding of state action may not be premised solely on the private entity's creation, funding, licensing, or regulation by the government'"). Accordingly, the Court concludes that Mr. Patterson has failed to state a claim for relief pursuant to § 1983 against US Bank. /// /// /// /// /// ///

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Dated: November 12, 2010 IT IS SO ORDERED.

II.

CONCLUSION

Because Mr. Patterson has still failed to state a claim for relief after being given an opportunity to cure deficiencies with his original complaint, the Court dismisses the case, this time with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the file in the case. Should Plaintiff seek information about alternative remedies, he should seek advice from the Legal Help Center (flyer attached).

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States Magistrate Judge

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. US BANK, Defendant. ___________________________________/ SAMUEL PATTERSON, JR., Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE No. C-10-4256 EMC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. On the below date, I served a true and correct copy of the attached, by placing said copy/copies in a postage-paid envelope addressed to the person(s) listed below, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail; or by placing said copy/copies into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Office of the Clerk. SAMUEL PATTERSON, JR. 1244 Northpoint Drive #A San Francisco, CA 94130 415/796-2849 Dated: November 12, 2010 RICHARD W. WIEKING, CLERK

By:

/s/ Leni Doyle Leni Doyle Deputy Clerk