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)

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