Corelleone et al v. Grounds et al

Filing 7

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 4/10/12. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/10/2012)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

OAKLAND DIVISION

6
7

ACHILLES CORELLEONE,
Plaintiff,

8
vs.

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

No. C 11-4338 PJH (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND

RANDY GROUNDS; MATHEW CATE;
BILL ZIKA, PhD; V. LOMELLI; Capt.
MARTINEZ; D. FOSTER; C.D.
REECE; L. KENNAMORE; and JOHN
DOES 1-10,
Defendants.

13

/
14
15

Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, has filed a pro se

16

civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in

17

forma pauperis.

18
19
20

DISCUSSION
A.

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

21

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

22

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and

23

dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

24

be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at

25

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

26

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

27
28

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary;

1

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

2

grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations

3

omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual

4

allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment] to relief'

5

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

6

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief

7

above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)

8

(citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is

9

plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has recently explained
the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are

12

well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine

13

whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct.

14

1937, 1950 (2009).

15

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

16

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was

17

violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the

18

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

19

B.

20

Legal Claims
Plaintiff claims that he was kept on lockdown for eleven months based on two rules

21

violation reports. He contends that this ”violated state law and CCR Title 15.” This

22

contention that state law was violated is not actionable under section 1983.

23

Plaintiff provides only the most conclusory allegations for his other claims; for

24

instance, the entirety of his claim two is “[t]he 602 appeals process is unconstitutional (new

25

602 process,” and the entirety of claim three is “[v]iolation of FEHA and American[s] with

26

Disabilities Act.” The remaining claims, four, five, seven (there is no claim six), eight, nine,

27

and ten are equally sketchy. These allegations are far from sufficient to state a plausible

28

claim for relief. The complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend.
2

1
2

CONCLUSION
1. For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend, as

3

indicated above, within thirty days from the date of this order. The amended complaint

4

must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the words

5

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

6

replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to

7

present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not

8

incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to amend within the

9

designated time will result in the dismissal of these claims.
2. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed

12

“Notice of Change of Address,” and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion.

13

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

14

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 10, 2012.
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.11\CORELLEONE4338.dwlta.wpd

3