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)

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