Robertson v. Virga et al

Filing 6

ORDER ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 04/17/2014. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RANDY DAVID RAY ROBERTSON, Case No. 13-cv-05868-WHO (PR) United States District Court Northern District of California Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 13 14 TIM VIRGA, et al., Defendants. 15 16 INTRODUCTION 17 This is a federal civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a pro se 18 19 state prisoner. After having reviewed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), 20 the Court DISMISSES the complaint with leave to file an amended complaint on or 21 before June 1, 2014. DISCUSSION 22 23 24 A. Standard of Review A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 25 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 26 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 27 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 28 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 1 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 2 See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 3 4 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 5 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has 6 facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 7 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting 8 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal 9 conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 (9th Cir. 1994). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two 12 essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States 13 was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 14 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 15 B. 16 Legal Claims Plaintiff Robertson alleges that (1) Dolly Matteuci, Executive Director of Napa 17 State Hospital, violated his right to due process (and a state court order) by "arbitrarily" 18 ordering Robertson transferred from a treatment hospital to prison after they had "a dispute 19 over legal rights"; and (2) Tim Virga, Warden of Sacramento State Prison, housed him in 20 conditions "designed to punish" after the transfer from Napa State Hospital. 21 The complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend for the following reasons. 22 First, his claims against Virga are DISMISSED without prejudice because they are 23 unrelated to his claims against Matteuci, and the alleged events giving rise to the claims 24 occurred in a different district. If Robertson wishes to seek relief through the federal 25 courts on his claims against Virga, he must file in the Eastern District of California, 26 wherein Sacramento State Prison lies. Second, his claims against Matteuci fail to state a 27 claim for a due process violation. A prisoner has no constitutional right to incarceration in 28 a particular institution. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 244-48 (1983). A 2 1 prisoner's liberty interests are sufficiently extinguished by his conviction that the state may 2 generally confine or transfer him to any of its institutions, to prisons in another state or to 3 federal prisons, without offending the Due Process Clause. See Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 4 527, 530 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224–25 (1976) (intrastate 5 prison transfer does not implicate Due Process Clause), and Olim, 461 U.S. at 244-48 6 (interstate prison transfer does not implicate Due Process Clause)). 7 Robertson’s claims against Matteuci may state a claim under the First Amendment, however. "Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails 9 five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an 10 inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner's protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 8 the inmate's exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably 12 advance a legitimate correctional goal." Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th 13 Cir. 2005) (footnote omitted). Here, it is not sufficient to say that Matteuci transferred 14 plaintiff in retaliation over a dispute over legal rights. More detail is needed in order to 15 state a claim. In his amended complaint, Robertson must specify what legal rights were at 16 issue and the details (dates, times, places, etc.) of the dispute with Matteuci, and allege 17 specific plausible facts showing that the transfer was retaliatory. 18 Robertson shall file an amended complaint on or before June 1, 2014. The first 19 amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (13- 20 5868 WHO (PR)) and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. 21 Because an amended complaint completely replaces the previous complaints, 22 Robertson must include in his first amended complaint all the claims he wishes to present 23 and all of the defendants he wishes to sue. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 24 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the prior complaint by reference. 25 Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in dismissal 26 of this action without further notice to plaintiff. 27 It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. He must keep the Court 28 informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice 3 1 of Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion or ask 2 for an extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in the dismissal of this 3 action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 17, 2014 _________________________ WILLIAM H. ORRICK United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RANDY ROBERTSON, Case Number: CV13-05868 WHO Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE v. TIM VIRGA et al, Defendant. / I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on April 17, 2014, I SERVED a true and correct copy of the attached, by placing said copy in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail. Randy David Ray Robertson BKG# CC12ED845 Martinez Detention Facility D-B-6 901 Court Street Martinez, CA 94553 Dated: April 17, 2014 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Jean Davis, Deputy Clerk

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?