Williams v. Pelican Bay Medical Staff et al

Filing 19

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 12/20/11. (Attachments: # 1 certificate of mailing)(mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11

ANTHONY SHARIF WILLIAMS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
DR. M. SAYRE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. C 10-1221 LHK (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

16
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a second amended civil rights
17
complaint against prison officials at Pelican Bay State Prison, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
18
For the reasons stated below, the Court dismisses this action.
19
DISCUSSION
20
A.

Standard of Review

21
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner
22
seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See
23
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss
24
any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or
25
seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C.
26
§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v.
27
Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
28
Order of Dismissal
P:\pro-se\sj.lhk\cr.10\Williams221dis

1

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

2

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that

3

the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v.

4

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

5

B.

Legal Claims

6

On July 19, 2010, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s original complaint with leave to amend

7

because he failed to sufficiently allege a constitutional violation, and failed to identify individual

8

Defendants, or explain how their specific actions caused him injury. The Court advised Plaintiff

9

about the deficiencies in his complaint, and directed him to file an amended complaint. On July

10

30, 2010, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. However, the amended complaint was still

11

deficient. Plaintiff failed provide factual allegations describing his “entitlement to relief.”

12

Further, Plaintiff’s claims amounted to no more than negligence. On September 29, 2011, the

13

Court gave Plaintiff one final opportunity to amend his amended complaint to allege a federal

14

constitutional violation, if he could do so in good faith.

15

On October 17, 2011, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. However, the second

16

amended complaint suffers from similar deficiencies as Plaintiff’s previous complaints, and fails

17

to state a federal claim for relief. Because Plaintiff has already been given two opportunities to

18

amend his complaint, the Court concludes that any further leave to amend would be futile.

19
20
21
22
23

CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk shall
close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

12/20/11

LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
Order of Dismissal
P:\pro-se\sj.lhk\cr.10\Williams221dis

2