Tennison-v-Minix et.al.
Filing
10
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 6/30/11. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2011)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
OAKLAND DIVISION
6
7
JAMES FREEMAN TENNISON,
Plaintiff,
8
vs.
9
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND
JOE MINIX, et al.,
Defendants.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
No. C 11-1718 (PR)
/
12
13
Plaintiff, a prisoner at San Quentin State Prison, has filed a pro se civil rights
14
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint involves events that occurred when
15
plaintiff was housed at the Alameda County Jail.
16
Plaintiff’s original complaint was on the court’s form for prisoner section 1983
17
complaints, but it contains no statement of his claim, just a reference to his other filing, a
18
lengthy handwritten complaint not on the form. Although plaintiff gives his real name in the
19
first sentence of the handwritten complaint, and lists it in the name-and-address portion of
20
the form complaint, he has listed the plaintiff in the caption of both documents as “John
21
Doe.” He says he has done this out of fear of retaliation if he uses his real name. It serves
22
no useful purpose to use John Doe in the caption when plaintiff’s real name is easily found
23
on the first page of the public documents – documents, moreover, that will be served on
24
defendants if the case is allowed to proceed -- and plaintiff is no longer at the Alameda
25
County Jail, where retaliation might plausibly be feared. The court therefore has used his
26
real name in the caption.
27
///
28
///
1
2
3
DISCUSSION
A.
Standard of Review
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners
4
seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
5
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and
6
dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may
7
be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at
8
1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police
9
Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary;
12
the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the
13
grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (per
14
curiam) (citations omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need
15
detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his
16
'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation
17
of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to
18
raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.
19
Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to
20
state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 1974. The United States
21
Supreme Court has recently explained the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly:
22
“While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported
23
by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should
24
assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement
25
to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009). However, complaints in pro se
26
prisoner cases, such as this one, must be liberally construed in favor of the plaintiff when
27
applying the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard. Hebbe v. Miller, 602 F.3d 12020, 1205 (9th
28
Cir. 2010).
2
1
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential
2
elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was
3
violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the
4
color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
5
B.
6
Legal Claims
Plaintiff contends that the only defendant who is identified by name, inmate Joe
7
Minix, his cellmate, attempted to poison him by putting some unknown substance on his
8
head while he slept. Plaintiff has provided no facts that even suggest that Minix was acting
9
under color of state law, an element of a section 1983 claim. This claim will be dismissed
with leave to amend to allege such facts, if they exist.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Plaintiff’s other claims are against unnamed defendants, whom he describes by job
12
title (“nurse,” “physician,” and so on). The court cannot, of course, serve a defendant who
13
is only so identified, and even if plaintiff succeeds in amending to allege that Minix was
14
acting under color of state law so as to allow the case against him to proceed, it is unlikely
15
that discovery directed to Minix would reveal the names of the unidentified parties. If
16
plaintiff is able to identify any of the other defendants, he should include their names in the
17
amended complaint, along with an address at which they can be served.
18
19
CONCLUSION
1. For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend, as
20
indicated above, within thirty days from the date of this order. The amended complaint
21
must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the words
22
AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely
23
replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to
24
present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not
25
incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to amend within the
26
designated time will result in the dismissal of these claims.
27
28
2. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the
court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed
3
1
“Notice of Change of Address,” and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion.
2
Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to
3
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 30, 2011.
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
6
7
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
P:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.11\TENNISON1718.DWLTA.wpd
4
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?