Phillips v. State of California et al

Filing 16

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/13/09. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants. / Plaintiff Regonald D. Phillips, a state prisoner, filed the present pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging constitutional rights violations. leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court conducted an initial screening of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff asserted that he has He has been granted REGONALD D. PHILLIPS, Plaintiff, No. C 07-0979 CW (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

been subjected to continuous violations of his constitutional rights, due to deliberate indifference by prison officials, for the past fifteen years. The Court found that Plaintiff failed to

provide any additional facts and that his allegations were not sufficient to state a plausible claim that his constitutional rights were violated. Therefore, the Court dismissed the complaint In amending,

with leave to amend to cure this pleading deficiency.

Plaintiff was directed to provide enough facts to explain which

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

constitutional rights were violated, in what way and by whom during the past fifteen years. Plaintiff was also directed to allege

facts sufficient to show that Defendants' actions rose to the level of constitutional violations. Finally, Plaintiff was directed to

show that he exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to the deliberate indifference claims in his complaint before he filed his suit. In the section of the complaint form where Plaintiff was

asked to write the names of all Defendants he named the State of California, the CDCR and all CDCR employees. The Court dismissed

all claims against the State of California and the CDCR because neither the State nor state agencies can be sued in federal court. The Court found that Plaintiff could not sue any CDCR employees as Defendants without naming and linking them each specifically to his deliberate indifference claims. Therefore, Plaintiff's claims

against all CDCR employees were dismissed with leave to amend to name the individually responsible defendants. The Court granted

Plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint to cure the pleading deficiencies, or to suffer dismissal of the action. Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint. The

amended complaint simply reiterates the same vague allegations that were stated in the original complaint, including allegations of "numerous countless conspiracies -- covert and overt -intentional, malicious acts of harm against [his] personal being from 1992 to present date 12-12-2008." (Am. Compl. at 3.) He

claims that he has attached a "chronological history of disciplinary intraction [sic] sheet . . . which list[s] all disciplinary C.D.C.R. illegall [sic] actions against [him]" in order "to substantiate [his] claims." 2 (Id.) However, nowhere in

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

his amended complaint does Plaintiff allege facts sufficient to show that the prison officials' actions rose to the level of constitutional violations. While Plaintiff states that he

"exhausted all 602 levels," he has failed to explain how he exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to any alleged deliberate indifference claims before he filed suit. Finally,

Plaintiff claims that the "Directors of C.D.C.R. and all their subordinates have subjected [him] to false persecution and prosecution as well as the lost [sic] of all [his] personal property and all of [his] legal documents." (Id.) The Court finds

that Plaintiff has failed to name the individually responsible defendants and to link them specifically to his deliberate indifference claims. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's amended complaint and finds that it does not cure the pleading deficiency identified in the Court's Order dismissing the original complaint with leave to amend. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED with

prejudice and without leave to amend. The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending motions and close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 1/13/09

CLAUDIA WILKEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

P:\PRO-SE\CW\CR.07\Phillips0979.dismiss.wpd

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA REGONALD D PHILLIPS, Plaintiff, v. THE STATE OF CALIF et al, Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-00979 CW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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 January 13, 2009, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Regonald D. Phillips E-40142 CSP - Corcoran 4A-1L-40 P.O. Box 3476 Corcoran, CA 93212-3476 Dated: January 13, 2009 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Sheilah Cahill, Deputy Clerk

P:\PRO-SE\CW\CR.07\Phillips0979.dismiss.wpd

4