Weaver v. Our Hot Water Cut Off et al

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 7/25/14. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/25/2014)

1

*E-Filed 7/25/14*

2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12

WILLIE WEAVER,
Plaintiff,

13

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.

14
15

No. C 14-1018 RS (PR)

HOT WATER CUT OFF, et al.,
Defendants.

16

/

17

INTRODUCTION

18

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

19
20

prisoner against his jailors at Pelican Bay State Prison. The original complaint was

21

dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to

22

correct the deficiencies of the first, and is DISMISSED.
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 14-1018 RS (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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
11

B.

(1)
(2)

Disposition
Plaintiff alleges in his amended complaint that an unnamed Pelican Bay correctional

12

officer harassed him on two days by failing to provide hot water for his unspecified

13

medications. These allegations fail to state any claim for relief. Plaintiff fails to provide

14

crucial details regarding the identity of the correctional officer, what medications plaintiff

15

had to take, and how the two-days of deprivations violated his constitutional rights.

16

Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. The Clerk shall enter

17

judgment in favor of defendants and close the file.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 25, 2014
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

No. C 14-1018 RS (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

2