Castle v. Sores et al

Filing 15

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 7/11/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/11/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco Division
KENNETH E. CASTLE,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13
14

Plaintiff,

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.
J. A. SORES; et al.,

15
16

No. C 13-2089 LB

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

17
18

Kenneth E. Castle, a prisoner at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, filed this pro se

19

prisoner's civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court reviewed the complaint and

20

dismissed it with leave to file an amended complaint no later than June 28, 2013. ECF No. 10 at 4.

21

The court explained that the complaint did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted and

22

that Castle had to do more than merely submit a pile of exhibits that pertained to his problems.

23
24
25
26

Castle's attachment of numerous documents relating to his fall and medical problems indicate
that he may want to complain about the fall or medical care, but the text of the complaint
does not provide enough details for the court to determine whether any of Castle's
constitutional rights may have been violated and whether [a] defendant may be liable. The
court will not read through exhibits to attempt to piece together a claim for a plaintiff. It is a
plaintiff's duty to provide a statement that is a complete statement of his claims against each
of the defendants.

27

ECF No. 10 at 3. To guide Castle in his preparation of an amended complaint, the court described

28

the elements necessary for Eighth Amendment claims about dangerous conditions and medical care,

C 13-2089 LB
ORDER

1
2

as well as the need to link individual defendants to the claims. See id. at 3-4.
Castle did not file an amended complaint, and the deadline by which to do so has passed. He did

The first letter states that the court already has his documents. ECF No. 13. The second letter

5

resubmits some exhibits that had been attached to the complaint. ECF No. 14. Even liberally

6

construing the letters to be an amended complaint, Castle fails to state a claim upon which relief may

7

be granted. The two letters do not cure the deficiencies identified in the Order Of Dismissal With

8

Leave To Amend. That is, Castle does not allege a claim for deliberate indifference to his safety or

9

medical needs, or any other violation of his constitutional rights. He also does not allege what any

10

defendant did or failed to do that may have caused a violation of his constitutional rights. Further

11

leave to amend will not be granted because it would be futile; the court has explained what Castle

12
For the Northern District of California

send two letters to the court after the issuance of the Order Of Dismissal With Leave To Amend.

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

needed to do to allege a claim and he was unable to do so.

13

This action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The

14

dismissal of this action is without prejudice to Castle filing an action in state court to pursue any

15

state law claims he may have. The clerk shall close the file.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 11, 2013
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

C 13-2089 LB
ORDER

2