Johnson v. Rodriguaze et al

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 1/5/12. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 *E-Filed 1/5/12* 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 11 12 BYRON JOHNSON, 13 Plaintiff, 14 15 No. C 11-2102 RS (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. NANCY ADAM, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 / 18 INTRODUCTION 19 20 This is a federal civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a pro se state 21 prisoner. The complaint was dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. The Court 22 now reviews the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). DISCUSSION 23 24 25 26 A. Standard of Review A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 27 28 No. C 11-2012 RS (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL 1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims and 2 dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may 3 be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. 4 § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica 5 Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 6 A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim 7 to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) 8 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial 9 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting 11 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal conclusions 12 cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from 13 the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 (9th Cir. 1994). 14 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 15 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and 16 (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. 17 See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 18 B. 19 Legal Claims Plaintiff’s amended complaint does not contain sufficient factual matter to state a 20 claim for relief. Plaintiff alleges that he tested positive for HIV in the 1980s. Yet, he tests 21 negative for HIV, according to the tests given by defendants, employees of Pelican Bay State 22 Prison. Plaintiff alleges that defendants’ HIV tests repeatedly give “false negatives.” 23 Plaintiff alleges that defendants’ failure to treat him has resulted in “further injury and 24 sickness deterioration [sic] and massive weight which resulted in loss of vision and ability to 25 [perform] daily functions.” This is insufficient to state a claim for relief. Plaintiff’s claims 26 are conclusory and wholly lacking in specific detail, such as which daily functions he is not 27 No. C 11-2012 RS (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL 28 2 1 able to perform and how defendants’ actions and inactions caused such circumstances. Such 2 conclusory allegations do not raise a colorable claim that defendants were deliberately 3 indifferent to his medical needs. Accordingly, the action is DISMISSED for failure 4 adequately to respond to the Court’s order to allege specific facts, rather than make 5 conclusory allegations, and for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 41(b). The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of defendants, and close the file. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: January 5, 2012 RICHARD SEEBORG United States District Judge 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 No. C 11-2012 RS (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL 28 3

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?