Medina v. Mendocino County et al

Filing 7

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 4/25/13. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/25/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 *E-Filed 4/25/13* 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 12 13 PORFIRIO MEDINA, 14 Plaintiff, No. C 12-3767 RS (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 15 THOMAS D. ALLMAN, MENDOCINO COUNTY, and 17 DOES 1–100; 16 Defendants. 18 / 19 20 INTRODUCTION 21 The original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff has filed an 22 amended complaint, which the Court now reviews pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). DISCUSSION 23 24 25 A. Standard of Review A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner 26 seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 27 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and 28 No. C 12-3767 RS (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL 1 dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may 2 be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. 3 § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica 4 Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim 5 6 to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) 7 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial 8 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 9 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal conclusions 11 cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from 12 the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 (9th Cir. 1994). 13 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 14 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and 15 (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. 16 See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 17 B. 18 Legal Claims Plaintiff, who is being civilly detained under California’s Sexually Violent Predator 19 Act, alleges that defendants, employees of Mendocino County Main jail, violated his 20 constitutional rights. The original complaint was dismissed because the claims were 21 conclusory and undetailed. 22 His amended complaint is similarly deficient. First, his complaint does not contain 23 sufficient factual matter to state claims for relief. Many necessary details are lacking, such as 24 names of specific defendants, the dates of the alleged violations, what actions a specific 25 defendant took on such date, etc. Second, plaintiff provides pages of factual allegations, and 26 then lists conclusory claims without direct citation to specific facts. It is plaintiff’s, not the 27 Court’s, duty to allege specific facts which, if true, show how a specific constitutional right 28 No. C 12-3767 RS (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL 2 1 was violated. It is not the Court’s duty to decide which facts in plaintiff’s narrative match 2 which claims. Such task would be inappropriate, and amount to guesswork. 3 Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Any motion to reopen the 4 action must contain an amended complaint that corrects the deficiencies discussed in this 5 order. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of defendants, and close the file. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: April 25, 2013 RICHARD SEEBORG United States District Judge 8 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 28 No. C 12-3767 RS (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL 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?