Sullivan v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. et al

Filing 3

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Amended Complaint due by 4/1/2014. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 2/27/14. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/27/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 *E-Filed 2/27/14* 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 MANSE SULLIVAN, for Mrs. Walter Mae Smith, 12 No. C 13-5173 RS (PR) ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC, and 15 ALTIRA GROUP, INC., Defendants. 16 / 17 INTRODUCTION 18 This is a federal civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by plaintiff, a 19 20 person civilly committed as a sexually violent predator under California law. The Court 21 DISMISSES the complaint with leave to file an amended complaint on or before April 1, 22 2014. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2) is GRANTED. DISCUSSION 23 24 25 A. Standard of Review A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim 26 to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) 27 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial 28 No. C 13-5173 RS (PR) ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 1 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 2 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting 3 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal conclusions 4 cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from 5 the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 (9th Cir. 1994). 6 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 7 that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and 8 that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See 9 West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 B. (1) (2) Legal Claims 11 Plaintiff brings this wrongful death action under § 1983 against Philip Morris USA, 12 Inc. and Altira Group, Inc., alleging that these corporations caused the death of his mother, 13 Mrs. Walter Mae Smith. The complaint will be dismissed for the following reasons. First, 14 the defendants are private, not public, actors. Private actors are not liable under § 1983. See 15 Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980).1 Second, this Court is likely not the correct 16 forum for plaintiff’s claims, all of which are in truth state tort claims.2 In his amended 17 complaint, plaintiff must allege facts that show that this Court has jurisdiction over such 18 claims. Unlike state courts, “[f]ederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess 19 only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. 20 of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The two main classes of cases over which the federal 21 courts have jurisdiction are those that present a federal question, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and 22 those in which the parties have diverse citizenship and involve an amount in controversy 23 exceeding $75,000, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Neither basis for jurisdiction is shown in the 24 25 26 1 Because defendants are not state actors, his claims under the Eighth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause are DISMISSED without leave to amend. 2 Plaintiff alleges that defendants are liable for age discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This claim is DISMISSED without leave to amend. The statute to which he 27 refers (29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.) applies only to instances of employment discrimination. 28 No. C 13-5173 RS (PR) ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 2 1 complaint. Plaintiff may wish to dismiss his federal complaint and file an action in state 2 court, where jurisdiction is not in question. 3 Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint on or before April 1, 2014. The first amended complaint must include 5 the caption and civil case number used in this order (13-5173 RS (PR)) and the words FIRST 6 AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely 7 replaces the previous complaints, plaintiff must include in his first amended complaint all the 8 claims he wishes to present and all of the defendants he wishes to sue. See Ferdik v. 9 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate material from 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 4 the prior complaint by reference. Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with 11 this order will result in dismissal of this action without further notice to plaintiff. 12 It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court 13 informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of 14 Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion or ask for 15 an extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in the dismissal of this action 16 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: February 27, 2014 RICHARD SEEBORG United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 No. C 13-5173 RS (PR) ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?