Sanders v. Alameda County, City of Dublin, CA, Sheriff's Department et al

Filing 11

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 5/5/14. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/5/2014)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 ERICK RANDALL SANDERS, 4 Plaintiff, 5 6 No. C 14-01298 YGR (PR) ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND vs. SHERIFF'S DEPUTY MIXON, 7 Defendant. 8 9 / Plaintiff Erick Randall Sanders, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at San Quentin State United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Prison, filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His motion for leave to 11 proceed in forma pauperis will be granted in a separate written Order. 12 For the reasons outlined below, the complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 13 14 15 DISCUSSION I. Standard of Review A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner seeks 16 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 17 § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims 18 which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 19 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro 20 se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 21 (9th Cir. 1990). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: 22 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the 23 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 24 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the 26 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a)(2). "Specific facts are not 27 necessary; the statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the 28 grounds upon which it rests." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations and internal 1 quotation marks omitted). Although in order to state a claim, a complaint 2 does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do . . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. 3 4 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 553-56 (2007) (citations and internal quotation marks 5 omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its 6 face." Id. at 570. 7 II. Legal Claims 8 In his complaint, Plaintiff names one Defendant, Alameda County Sheriff's Deputy Mixon. 9 Plaintiff has left the space under "Statement of Claim" blank. Instead, under the "Relief" section, he United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 asserts the following statement: "Assault charges against him 10 million dollars." (Compl. at 3.) 11 This is the only allegation; no more facts are provided. Such a bare allegation is, of course, not 12 sufficient to state a "plausible" claim that Plaintiff's constitutional rights were violated. See 13 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. The complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. 14 In amending, Plaintiff should provide enough facts to explain, for instance, in what way and 15 by whom he was assaulted. He should also explain when and where the assault took place, and 16 elaborate on whether he suffered injuries as a result of the assault. The Court considers only claims 17 of violations of federal law, usually the constitution, so Plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to show 18 that the action he is complaining of rises to the level of a constitutional violation. 19 The Court again notes that only Defendant Mixon is named in the complaint. If Plaintiff is 20 attempting to hold an individual liable, he must allege facts showing what that individual did that 21 violated his constitutional rights. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988) (sweeping 22 conclusory allegations will not suffice; plaintiff must instead "set forth specific facts as to each 23 individual defendant's" actions which violated his or her rights). There is no respondeat superior 24 liability in Section 1983 cases; therefore a supervisor cannot be held liable just because he or she is 25 in charge. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 26 CONCLUSION 27 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 28 1. The complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Within twenty-eight 2 1 (28) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall file a amended complaint correcting the 2 deficiencies of his claims as set forth above. Plaintiff must use the attached civil rights form, write 3 the case number for this action -- Case No. C 14-1298 YGR (PR) -- on the form, clearly label it 4 "Amended Complaint," and complete all sections of the form. Because this amended complaint 5 completely replaces the original complaint, Plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to 6 present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992); 7 King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987); London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 8 (9th Cir. 1981). He may not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. He must 9 also specify whether he exhausted or was prevented from exhausting his administrative remedies United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 with respect to any or all of those claims before filing this action. Plaintiff's failure to file an 11 amended complaint by the twenty-eight day deadline will result in the dismissal of this action 12 without prejudice. 13 2. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court 14 informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion. 15 Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 3-11 a party proceeding pro se whose address changes 16 while an action is pending must promptly file a notice of change of address specifying the new 17 address. See L.R. 3-11(a). The Court may dismiss without prejudice a complaint when: (1) mail 18 directed to the pro se party by the Court has been returned to the Court as not deliverable, and 19 (2) the Court fails to receive within sixty days of this return a written communication from the pro se 20 party indicating a current address. See L.R. 3-11(b). 21 3. Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable extensions will be granted. 22 Any motion for an extension of time must be filed no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the 23 deadline sought to be extended. 24 25 26 27 4. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff a blank civil rights form along with a copy of this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: May 5, 2014 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 28 P:\PRO-SE\YGR\CR.14\Sanders1298.DWLA.frm 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?