Silas v. Chapple

Filing 9

ORDER OF DISMISSAL, ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 7/10/14. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(nahS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/10/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

OAKLAND DIVISION

6
7

CHARLES SILAS,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

KEVIN CHAPPLE,
Defendant.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 14-2686 PJH (PR)

/
12
Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison, has
13
filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has been granted leave to
14
proceed in forma 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, 556 U.S. 662,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

679 (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
In this action, plaintiff states that two doctors at High Desert State Prison, which is

18

located in the Eastern District of California, failed to properly treat his Hepatitis C starting in

19

2003.

20

In Silas v. Chappell, No. C 12-3019 PJH, plaintiff brought an action regarding the

21

treatment of his Hepatitis C, by simply stating that his condition was not being properly

22

treated. The complaint in that case was dismissed with leave to amend and it was

23

described to plaintiff how he must provide more information and identify specific defendants

24

in order to state a claim. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that only provided a little

25

more information. It also became apparent that plaintiff was describing events that

26

occurred in 2002-2005 at High Desert State Prison in the Eastern District of California.

27

Court records also indicated that plaintiff had recently filed the exact same case and

28

exhibits in the Eastern District of California. See Silas v. Chappell, 13-cv-0010 DAD P.
2

1

This court dismissed and closed Silas v. Chappell, No. C 12-3019 PJH. Plaintiff filed

2

another similar case to the one mentioned above that was dismissed as duplicative, Silas v.

3

Chappell, No. C 13-0630 PJH, and another case Silas v. Chappell, No. C 13-1913 PJH,

4

that was also dismissed as duplicative.

5

As the defendants named in this action are the same named defendants in the

6

Eastern District of California case and as both cases describe the same facts that occurred

7

in that district, this case is dismissed as duplicative. See Adams v. Cal. Dept. of Health

8

Services, 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007).

9

CONCLUSION
1. The complaint is DISMISSED and this case is closed.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a response (Docket No. 7) is DENIED.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated: July 10, 2014.
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

14
15

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.14\Silas2686.dsm.wpd

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3