Reed v. New Port Tobacco Co.
ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 04/07/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/7/2011)
Reed v. New Port Tobacco Co.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff, a pre-trial detainee presently housed at the Santa Rita (Alameda County) jail, and frequent litigant in federal court, has filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. #1. Plaintiff also seeks leave to proceed in forma The action is v. NEWPORT TOBACCO COMPANY, Defendant. / TYRONE L. REED, Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL No. C-11-1195 TEH (PR) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
pauperis, which the court GRANTS in a separate order.
now before the Court for initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint,
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint "is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted," or "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." Id. § 1915A(b). Pleadings filed by pro se Hebbe v. Pliler,
litigants, however, must be liberally construed.
627 F.3d 338, 34142 (9th Cir. 2010); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
Here, Plaintiff has filed a civil rights action against a tobacco company for his apparent addiction to nicotine. 3. Doc. #1 at
Simply put, Plaintiff's allegations are insufficient to state a The action,
cognizable claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. therefore, is DISMISSED with prejudice.
The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions as moot and close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED.
04/07/2011 THELTON E. HENDERSON United States District Judge
G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.11\Reed-11-1195-order of dismissal.wpd
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?