Bruton v. Napa State Hospital

Filing 4

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 12/20/12. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
No. C 12-5561 WHA (PR)

DAVID BRUTON,
10

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND

vs.
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Plaintiff,
11
12
NAPA STATE HOSPITAL,
13
Defendant.
/

14
15

INTRODUCTION
16
This is a civil rights case brought pro se by a state prisoner incarcerated at the Napa
17
State Hospital (“NSH”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He sues NSH for monetary damages for
18
allegedly violating his civil rights there. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma
19
pauperis in a separate order. For the reasons discussed below, the case is DISMISSED WITH
20
LEAVE TO AMEND.
21
DISCUSSION
22
A.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

23
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek
24
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
25
1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims
26
which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek
27
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2).
28

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

1

statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds

4

upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted).

5

Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a

6

plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than

7

labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not

8

do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative

9

level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A

10

complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id.

11
For the Northern District of California

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

3

United States District Court

2

at 1974. Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901

12

F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

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 (2)

15

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

16

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

17

B.

LEGAL CLAIMS

18

Plaintiff alleges that he suffers from schizophrenic disorder and alcoholism, and that

19

NSH is violating his civil rights and his rights under the Rehabilitation Act. NSH, as a state

20

agency, is generally immune under the Eleventh Amendment from claims for money damages.

21

Brown v. Cal. Dep't of Corrs., 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009). Claims under the

22

Rehabilitation Act, however, are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Douglas v.

23

California Dept. of Youth Authority, 271 F.3d 812, 819 (9th Cir.), amended, 271 F.3d 910 (9th

24

Cir. 2001). Although plaintiff’s Rehabilitation Act claims are not barred by the Eleventh

25

Amendment, he has not stated any claims with sufficient particularity. He does not explain how

26

NSH is violating his rights other than to make the general statement “a lot of ethics laws” are

27

“being abused” (Compl. 3). Under Rule 8 and Iqbal, in order to adequately notify defendant of

28

his claims, plaintiff must allege facts explaining what rights under the Rehabilitation Act are
2

1

being violated, as well as when, how and by whom they were violated. He will be given leave

2

to amend to attempt to do so.

3

CONCLUSION

4

For the foregoing reasons,

5

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend, as indicated above, within 30 days

6

from the date of this order. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case

7

number used in this order (No. C 12-5561 WHA (PR)) and the words AMENDED

8

COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the

9

original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v.
Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

original complaint by reference. Failure to amend within the designated time and in accordance

12

with this order will result in the dismissal of this case.

13

2. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court

14

informed of any change of address by filing with the clerk a separate paper headed “Notice of

15

Change of Address.” Papers intended to be filed in this case should be addressed to the clerk

16

and not to the undersigned. Plaintiff also must comply with the court's orders in a timely

17

fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute

18

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: December

20

, 2012.

22

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.12\BRUTON5561.LTA.wpd

3