Patterson v. Crespo

Filing 9

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE re 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Andre Patterson, 4 Order,. Signed by Judge Alsup on January 3, 2012. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
ANDRE PATTERSON,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

No. C 11-06139 WHA

v.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEEANNA CRESPO,
Defendant.
/

16

On December 5, 2011, pro se plaintiff Andre Patterson filed this civil rights action against

17

his landlord. Patterson also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 3). This action

18

was initially assigned to Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins. Patterson, however, declined to

19

proceed before the Magistrate Judge and the action was transferred before the undersigned judge.

20

Prior to reassignment, Judge Cousins issued a report recommending that the motion to proceed in

21

forma pauperis be granted, and Patterson’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to

22

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. No objections were filed. This order ADOPTS in

23

full the report and recommendation of Judge Cousins.

24

For the reasons stated in Judge Cousins’ report, Patterson has shown in his IFP application

25

that he is unable to pay the filing fee required. Patterson’s complaint, however, fails to state a

26

claim upon which relief may be granted. In his handwritten complaint, Patterson claims that

27

Defendant Deeanna Crespo violated his rights under the First and Fifth Amendments of the

28

United States Constitution. He alleges that after he was threatened by an “unruly” and “violent”

1

co-tenant, he attempted to report the incident to Defendant Crespo, who is his landlord and “an

2

advocate for Catholic charities.” Crespo allegedly told Patterson to leave her office and “banned”

3

him “from services.” Patterson claims that Franklin’s actions violated his “right to a fair hearing”

4

under the Fifth Amendment. The rest of the complaint contains excerpts of the First and Fifth

5

Amendments.

6

Patterson’s complaint fails to state a claim for relief under the First or Fifth Amendments

7

because he fails to allege that Crespo was a person acting on behalf of the federal government.

8

Patterson’s complaint also fails to state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983 because Patterson

9

does not allege that Crespo acted under the color of law when she purportedly violated his rights.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

For the reasons stated, Patterson’s IFP application is GRANTED and his complaint is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: January 3, 2012.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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