Castle v. Sores et al

Filing 19

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO REOPEN THE ACTION: Re 17 Letter filed by Kenneth E Castle. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 8/23/2013. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/23/2013) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/23/2013: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (ls, COURT STAFF).

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

Plaintiff,

No. C 13-2089 LB
ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO
REOPEN THE ACTION

v.
[Re. ECF No. 17]

14

J. A. SORES; et al.,

15
16

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

17
18

Kenneth E. Castle filed this pro se prisoner's civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The

19

court reviewed the complaint, dismissed it for failure to state a claim, and granted Castle leave to file

20

an amended complaint no later than June 28, 2013. ECF No. 10 at 4. Castle did not file an amended

21

complaint, although he did submit two letters to the court. The action was dismissed on July 11,

22

2013 for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. ECF No. 15. As explained in the

23

order of dismissal, even liberally construing Castle’s two letters to be an amended complaint did not

24

help Castle because they failed to cure the several deficiencies identified in the order of dismissal

25

with leave to amend. See id.

26

After this action was dismissed, Castle sent a letter requesting reinstatement of his claims and

27

submitting further documents relating to his claims. ECF No. 17. The court construes the letter and

28

attachments to be a request to reopen the action to permit the consideration of the documents

C 13-2089 LB
ORDER

1

attached to his letter as an amended complaint. So construed, the request is DENIED. ECF No. 17.

2

There is no reason to vacate the order of dismissal or reopen the action because the letter and

3

attachments thereto do not cure the pleading deficiencies identified in the order of dismissal with

4

leave to amend or in the order of dismissal.

discussing legal principles, (2) a page of allegations about the handling of his inmate appeal, and

7

(3) an “affidavit for waiver of government claims filing fee and financial information form.” ECF

8

No. 17. Castle’s discussion of the principles of negligence and compensatory damages, see id. at 2,

9

does not aid him because it appears to have been copied from a legal text and does not allege facts

10

regarding any defendant’s acts or omissions. Castle’s description of the alleged mishandling of his

11

inmate appeals, see id. at 3, does not state a claim for the reasons explained in the order of dismissal

12
For the Northern District of California

The attachments to Castle’s letter requesting that the action be reopened consist of: (1) a page

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

with leave to amend. See ECF No. 10 at 2-3. Finally, Castle’s attachment of an “affidavit for

13

waiver of government claims filing fee and financial information form,” see ECF No. 17 at 5-17,

14

does not aid him because it does not allege any acts or omissions by any defendant that are even

15

suggestive of deliberate indifference to his safety or medical needs. In fact, Castle’s statement in

16

that form that he was injured due to the “negligen[ce]” of unidentified prison staff members, see id.

17

at 8, indicates that his claim should be pursued in state court because negligence is not actionable

18

under

19

§ 1983 in the prison context. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835-36 & n.4 (1994).

20

Whether considered individually or in combination with the other letters from Castle, the letter

21

and attachments at ECF No. 17 fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against any

22

defendant. Therefore, the court will not vacate its earlier dismissal of the action or reopen the

23

action. Castle is reminded that the dismissal of this action is without prejudice to him filing an

24

action in state court to pursue any state law claims he may have.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 23, 2013
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

27
28

C 13-2089 LB
ORDER

2