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)

Download PDF
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

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?