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)

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