France v. Bloomfield et al

Filing 6

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 11/17/2020. (amd2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2020)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
No. C 20-4018 WHA (PR)

MICHAEL R. FRANCE,
8
Plaintiff,

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND

9
v.
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
RON BLOOMFIELD; SANDERS;
ARNOLD; KING; LAJUN; NELSON,
Defendants.

12

/
13
INTRODUCTION

14

Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights case under 42

15
16

U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials. He is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis is in a

17

separate order. For the reasons discussed below, the complaint is dismissed with leave to

18

amend.
ANALYSIS

19
20

A.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

21

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek

22

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

23

1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims

24

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek

25

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro

26

se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699

27

(9th Cir. 1990).

28

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the

1

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; the

2

statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds

3

upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted).

4

Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a

5

plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than

6

labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not

7

do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative

8

level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A

9

complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id.
at 1974.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:

12

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2)

13

that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

14

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

15

B.

16

LEGAL CLAIMS
Plaintiff, a frequent litigator in federal court, submitted a complaint that sets forth a

17

confusing and seemingly self-contradictory narrative. He alleges that defendants unfairly placed

18

him in segregation in December 2019 for five and a half weeks pending investigation into a fight

19

at San Quentin State Prison. He alleges that he was moved to Pelican Bay State Prison, where he

20

has been “ever since,” but the complaint and docket indicates that his current address is San

21

Quentin. He alleges that defendants spread false information about him that endangered his life

22

at San Quentin. He also alleges being that after he was released from segregation, other

23

defendants sending him back to segregation immediately after for unrelated reasons, where he

24

has remained for eight months, that defendants interfered with his court case and legal mail, and

25

that defendants’ actions were based upon their personal dislike of him. It appears that some of

26

these actions were taken while he was at Pelican Bay, but he indicates that all of the defendants

27

are located at San Quentin. Plaintiff does not identify what claims he is bringing, separately

28
2

1

label and enumerate such claims, clarify which defendants he believes is liable for each claim, or

2

identify the federal right associated with each claim. As pled, it is impossible to know which

3

claims he is bringing against whom, or where, when and by whom each alleged violation of his

4

rights took place. Plaintiff will be given leave to file an amended complaint to cure these

5

deficiencies, if he can do so in good faith.

6
7

CONCLUSION
The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Within 28 days of the date this order

above, if he can do so in good faith. The amended complaint must include the caption used in

10

this order and the civil case number C 20-4018 WHA (PR) and the words FIRST AMENDED

11
For the Northern District of California

is filed, plaintiff shall file an amended complaint in which he cures the deficiencies described

9

United States District Court

8

COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the

12

original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v.

13

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the

14

original complaint by reference. Failure to amend within the designated time and in accordance

15

with this order will result in the dismissal of this case.

16

It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court

17

informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion.

18

Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to

19

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
Dated: November
22

17

, 2020.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
3