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)

Download PDF
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

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?