Fuller v. Haynal

Filing 7

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 5/20/13. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/20/2013)

1
2

*E-Filed 5/20/13*

3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

BRUCE L. FULLER,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. C 13-0172 RS (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.
ANDREW JOHN HAYNAL,

14

Defendant.

15

/

16

INTRODUCTION

17

This is a federal civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a pro se state

18
19

prisoner. The Court now reviews the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
DISCUSSION

20
21
22

A.

Standard of Review
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner

23

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

24

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims and

25

dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

26

be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id.

27

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica

28
No. C 13-0172 RS (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

1

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

2
3

to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)

4

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial

5

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

6

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting

7

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal conclusions

8

cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from

9

the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 (9th Cir. 1994).

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

B.

15

Legal Claims
Plaintiff alleges that his attorney violated his federal constitutional rights when he

16

destroyed without plaintiff’s consent files related to plaintiff’s legal proceedings. Plaintiff’s

17

attorney appears to be a private, not a state, actor. Private actors are not liable under § 1983.

18

See Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980). In order to state a claim for relief, plaintiff

19

must allege facts showing that his attorney was acting under color of state law.

20

Accordingly, the action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Any motion to reopen

21

must include a complaint containing nonconclusory factual allegations that defendant was

22

acting under color of state law. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of defendant, and

23

close the file.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 20, 2013
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

26
27
28

No. C 13-0172 RS (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

2