Taylor v. Marin County Clerks Office et al

Filing 19

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. For the reasons stated, this action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 10/5/2011. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 No. C 10-03217 EJD (PR) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) ) MARIN COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE, ) ) et al., ) ) Defendants. _________________________________ ) GREGORY TAYLOR, 11 12 13 14 15 ORDER OF DISMISSAL 16 Plaintiff, a California inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed a pro se civil rights 17 18 complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma 19 pauperis. After the Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, (see Docket No. 20 7), Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Docket No. 13.) 21 DISCUSSION 22 23 A. Standard of Review 24 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners 25 seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 26 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and 27 dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief 28 may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such Order of Dismissal P:\PRO-SE\SJ.EJD\CR.10\Taylor03217_dism.wpd 1 1 relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a person 2 3 acting under the color of state law committed a violation of a right secured by the 4 Constitution or laws of the United States. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Pro se 5 pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 6 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 7 B. 8 Plaintiff’s Claims In the original complaint, Plaintiff alleged that he was arrested by defendant 9 Officer Jesse Jenkins of the Sausalito Police Department for “an old restraining order.” 10 (Compl. at 3.) Plaintiff claims that this restraining order was invalid as his wife had the 11 order dismissed on October 9, 2006. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that the Marin County Clerk’s 12 Office left the restraining order in the data system for 3 years under the watch of 13 defendant Kim Turner, the Executive Officer of the Clerk’s Office. (Id.) In the amended 14 complaint, Plaintiff’s statement of claim is a single paragraph wherein he asserts that he 15 doesn’t believe that his arrest “was an accident” and that “[t]his is a real case of 16 negligence.” (Am. Compl. at 3.) 17 As was the case in the dismissal of the original complaint, these allegations in the 18 amended complaint are insufficient to state a claim. Plaintiff fails to both identify how 19 the named Defendants – Kim Turner, Executive Clerks of the Court of Marin, and Officer 20 Jesse Jenkins of the Sausalito Police Department, and Judge Beverly Woods, (Am. 21 Compl. at 2-3) – violated his constitutional rights and what specific rights were violated. 22 Plaintiff was advised in the Court’s Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend that to state 23 a claim, Plaintiff must show a specific constitutional or federal guarantee safeguarding 24 the interests that have been invaded. See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 697 (1976). 25 Furthermore, in order for a complaint to state a claim arising under federal law, it must be 26 clear from the face of Plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint that there is a federal question. 27 See Easton v. Crossland Mortgage Corp., 114 F.3d 979, 982 (9th Cir. 1997). 28 Plaintiff was also advised that with respect to the allegations against Defendants, Order of Dismissal P:\PRO-SE\SJ.EJD\CR.10\Taylor03217_dism.wpd 2 1 liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the 2 plaintiff can show that the defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a federally 3 protected right. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988); Harris v. City of 4 Roseburg, 664 F.2d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 1981). A person deprives another of a 5 constitutional right within the meaning of section 1983 if he does an affirmative act, 6 participates in another’s affirmative act or omits to perform an act which he is legally 7 required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains. See Leer, 844 8 F.2d at 633. The inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the duties 9 and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to 10 have caused a constitutional deprivation. Id. 11 Here, as in his original complaint, Plaintiff again fails to identify how each 12 Defendant acted under the color of state law and what federal rights were violated 13 thereby. At most, he alleges that “negligence” was involved. (Am. Compl. at 3.) While 14 a pro se complaint must be liberally construed, it “‘may be dismissed for failure to state a 15 claim only where “it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in 16 support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.”’” Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 17 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). After being advised of what was 18 necessary to state a claim, Plaintiff has merely restated the allegations from his original 19 complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 20 CONCLUSION 21 22 23 For the reasons stated above, this action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 24 25 DATED: October 5, 2011 EDWARD J. DAVILA United States District Judge 26 27 28 Order of Dismissal P:\PRO-SE\SJ.EJD\CR.10\Taylor03217_dism.wpd 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GREGORY TAYLOR, Case Number: CV10-03217 EJD Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE v. MARIN COUNTY CLERKS OFFICE, et al., Defendants. / I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. 10/5/2011 That on , I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. Gregory Taylor 322 California Street Stockton, CA 95302 Dated: 10/5/2011 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk /s/ By: Elizabeth Garcia, Deputy Clerk

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?