Hamilton v. Sanchez

Filing 4

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Amended Complaint due by 9/13/2013. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 8/7/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2013)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

OAKLAND DIVISION

6
7

EUGENE LAMAR HAMILTON,
Plaintiff,

8
vs.

9

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND

L. SANCHEZ,
Defendant.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 13-3410 PJH (PR)

/
12
Plaintiff, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison, has filed a pro se civil rights
13
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma
14
pauperis.
15
DISCUSSION
16
A.

Standard of Review

17
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners
18
seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
19
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and
20
dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may
21
be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at
22
1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police
23
Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
24
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of
25
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary;
26
the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the
27
grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations
28
omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has recently explained

7

the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the

8

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

9

well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine
whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

1937, 1950 (2009).

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

B.

17

Legal Claims
Plaintiff states that the sole defendant in this case disseminated to the inmate

18

population that plaintiff was a convicted date rapist and child molester in an attempt to

19

cause injury and prolong his imprisonment. Plaintiff states this was retaliatory, but provides

20

no other information nor is there any indication that he was harmed as a result. Plaintiff

21

then discusses several other unrelated incidents at other prisons and incidents that are

22

subject to other ongoing cases in this court. Plaintiff only seeks money damages.

23

Plaintiff states that defendant violated Title 15 of California Prison Regulations by

24

disseminating the information. However, this fails to state a federal claim as plaintiff must

25

allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. The

26

existence of regulations governing the conduct of prison employees does not necessarily

27

entitle an inmate to sue civilly for their violation. Davis v. Powell, 901 F. Supp 2d 1196,

28

1211 (S. D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2012). Nor has plaintiff alleged any violation of the First or Eighth
2

1

Amendment. The complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend to provide more

2

information for his claims.

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the

5

standards set forth above. The amended complaint must be filed no later than September

6

13, 2013, and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the

7

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

8

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

9

wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may

10

not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to amend within

11
For the Northern District of California

CONCLUSION

4

United States District Court

3

the designated time will result in the dismissal of these claims.

12

2. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 7, 2013.
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

20
21

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.13\Hamilton3410.dwlta.wpd

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3