Williams v. Wells Fargo Bank

Filing 6

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 6/11/12. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
ROBERT L. WILLIAMS,
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
WELLS FARGO BANK, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
__________________________________ )

No. C 12-2604 JSW (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

16
INTRODUCTION
17
Plaintiff, an inmate in the Contra Costa County Jail, filed this civil rights action
18
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Wells Fargo Bank and one of its branch managers
19
because the bank allegedly failed to cancel his debit card and did not send him records
20
that he requested. His application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted in a separate
21
order. This Court now reviews the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and
22
dismisses it for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief.
23
STANDARD OF REVIEW
24
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners
25
seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
26
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the
27
complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or
28

1

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a

2

defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be

3

liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

4

1990).

5

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement

6

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not

7

necessary; the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim

8

is and the grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200

9

(2007) (citations omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need

10

detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his

11

'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic

12

recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must

13

be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

14

Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer

15

"enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 1974.

16
17

LEGAL CLAIMS
Plaintiff seeks to sue Wells Fargo Bank and its branch manager under Section

18

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

19

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

20

that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

21

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

22

Plaintiff’s claims are not cognizable because they do not satisfy the second

23

element of a Section 1983 claim. Suits against private individuals and entities do not

24

satisfy the second essential element of a claim under Section 1983 because private

25

individuals and entities do not act under color of state law. Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S.

26

635, 640 (1980). Purely private conduct, no matter how wrongful, is not covered under

27

Section 1983. Ouzts v. Maryland Nat'l Ins. Co., 505 F.2d 547, 550 (9th Cir. 1974).

28

Plaintiff’s claims under Section 1983 against Wells Fargo Bank and its manager are not

1

cognizable because these Defendants are private parties that are not liable under Section

2

1983. Consequently, the claims will be dismissed.

3

CONCLUSION

4

For the foregoing reasons, this case is DISMISSED. The Clerk shall enter

5
6
7

judgment and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 11, 2012

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

JEFFREY S. WHITE
United States District Judge

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
ROBERT L WILLIAMS,

Case Number: CV12-02604 JSW

6
Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

7
v.

8
WELLS FARGO BANK et al,

9
Defendant.

10
11
12
13
14

/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
That on June 11, 2012, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing
said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

15
16

18

Robert L. Williams ANB-118
27724 Andrea Street
Hayward, CA 94544

19

Dated: June 11, 2012

17

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk