Smith v. Bloomberg Corporate

Filing 15

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 11/27/17. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/27/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ADRIAN REYNARD SMITH, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 17-cv-05596-PJH ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. BLOOMBERG CORPORATE, Defendant. 12 13 Plaintiff, a detainee, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 14 1983. The original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend and plaintiff has filed 15 an amended complaint. DISCUSSION 16 17 STANDARD OF REVIEW 18 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners 19 seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 20 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and 21 dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief 22 may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 23 relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. 24 Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement 26 of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not 27 necessary; the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim 28 is and the grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed 2 factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment] 3 to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the 4 elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to 5 raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 6 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state 7 a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme 8 Court has recently explained the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal 9 conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual 10 allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” 12 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 13 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 14 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 15 violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the 16 color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 17 LEGAL CLAIMS 18 In his original complaint, plaintiff stated that his money was lost or stolen through 19 stocks and investments with Google and Bloomberg. For relief he sought identification 20 numbers and investment account numbers for Google and Bloomberg. The complaint 21 was dismissed with leave to amend to provide more information because his claims were 22 not clear. Plaintiff was informed that to the extent he sought his account numbers he 23 should contact the individual company. He was also informed that he brought this action 24 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, yet had failed to identify a federal right or any action by a state 25 actor. He was instructed to identify a different federal law or statute if he did not intend to 26 proceed pursuant to § 1983. 27 28 In his amended complaint plaintiff states that he was an associate at Bloomberg Corporate and is entitled to his benefits as an associate. He states that he has not 2 1 received any monthly earnings or royalties from his stocks and bonds. For relief he again 2 seeks information regarding his accounts and employee benefits. Plaintiff has failed to 3 cure the deficiencies identified in the prior court order. He has failed to state a claim 4 pursuant to § 1983 and has not identified any other cause of action. Moreover, plaintiff 5 has not even attempted to provide more information as instructed by the court and it is 6 not clear the relief he seeks. It appears that plaintiff needs to contact his former 7 employer to obtain information. This action is dismissed. Because allowing further 8 amendment would be futile, this case is dismissed with prejudice. CONCLUSION 9 1. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 2. The clerk shall close this case. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: November 27, 2017 14 15 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?