Coleman v. Boyle et al
Filing
4
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 1/10/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/10/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
14
No. C 12-2339 YGR (PR)
DEMETRIUS COLEMAN,
S. BOYLE, et al.,
Defendants.
15
/
16
17
INTRODUCTION
18
This is a federal civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a pro se state
19
prisoner. The Court, after having reviewed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A),
20
DISMISSES the complaint with leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff shall file an
21
amended complaint addressing the deficiencies detailed below on or before January 20,
22
2013.
23
24
25
DISCUSSION
A.
Standard of Review
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner
26
seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
27
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and
28
No. C 12-2339 YGR (PR)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
1
dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may
2
be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id.
3
§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica
4
Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim
5
6
to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)
7
(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial
8
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
9
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal conclusions
11
cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from
12
the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 (9th Cir. 1994).
13
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:
14
(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and
15
(2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.
16
See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
17
B.
18
Legal Claims
Plaintiff alleges that defendants, employees of the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s
19
Department, (1) impermissibly denied him access to a home detention program though he
20
had been admitted to such program as part of his sentence, and (2) “practice many civil rights
21
violations” at the place of his current detention. The first claim relates to the execution of his
22
sentence, and therefore must be brought as a habeas corpus action. Accordingly, the first
23
claim is DISMISSED without prejudice to plaintiff refiling it by way of a habeas petition.
24
The second claim does not contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim for relief.
25
Plaintiff must provide more specific details, such as which defendant denied his rights, the
26
specific rights that were allegedly violated, on what date, etc. For example, it is not
27
sufficient to say that he was not allowed to call his attorney. Plaintiff must allege the name
28
No. C 12-2339 YGR (PR)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
2
1
of the defendant, on what date this occurred, why he was calling his attorney, and how
2
defendant’s action violated a specific constitutional right, etc. Plaintiff is given leave to file
3
an amended complaint including these specific details on or before January 31, 2013.
4
The first amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in
5
this order (12-2339 YGR (PR)) and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first
6
page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the previous complaints, plaintiff
7
must include in his first amended complaint all the claims he wishes to present and all of the
8
defendants he wishes to sue. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992).
9
Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the prior complaint by reference. Failure to file
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in dismissal of this action
11
without further notice to plaintiff.
12
It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court
13
informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice
14
of Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion or ask
15
for an extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in the dismissal of this action
16
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
January 10, 2013
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
No. C 12-2339 YGR (PR)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
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?