Anderson v. Crewtwood Manor, et al.,

Filing 8

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/1/2011)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

RICKARD ANDERSON,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

No. C 11-2845 SI (pr)

Plaintiff,

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND

v.
CRESTWOOD MANOR; et al.,

12

/

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

Rickard Anderson, formerly a patient at the San Francisco General Hospital and now
residing at Crestwood Recovery & Rehab Center in Vallejo, commenced this action by filing pro
se a document entitled "introduction legal letter" and later a civil rights complaint under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Although Anderson has been incarcerated in the past and has filed more than a
hundred actions in this court, he apparently was not incarcerated at the time of filing of this
action. The action is not governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which applies only to actions filed
by prisoners. However, he has applied to proceed in forma pauperis and therefore is subject to
the non-prisoner provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), notwithstanding any filing fee or any portion thereof that may
have been paid, "the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the
action or appeal . . . is frivolous or malicious." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A claim that is
incomprehensible may be dismissed as frivolous as it is without an arguable basis in law. See
Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 641 (9th Cir. 1989).

Anderson's complaint is

incomprehensible and therefore is subject to dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Before
dismissing the action, however, the court will give Anderson an opportunity to attempt to file
a pleading that states a claim.

1

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that

2

a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the

3

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487

4

U.S. 42, 48 (1988). For each instance of a constitutional violation, Anderson should name each

5

person who violated his constitutional right(s), describe what each person did to violate his

6

right(s), state where the violation occurred, and when the violation occurred.
For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. An

8

amended complaint must be filed no later than September 30, 2011. The amended complaint

9

must include the caption and civil case number used in this Order and the words AMENDED

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

7

COMPLAINT on the first page. Failure to timely file the amended complaint will result in the

11

dismissal of the action.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 1, 2011

_______________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2