Leader Technologies, Inc., v. Facebook, Inc.

Filing 3

Declaration of M. H. Keyes in Support of 1 MOTION to Quash filed by Karel Baloun, Stephen Dawson-Haggerty, Thyagaraja S. Ramakrishnan. (Related document(s) 1 ) (cv, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/4/2010) (cv, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/30/2010: # 1 Exhibit A) (cv, COURT STAFF). Modified on 3/30/2010 (cv, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/30/2010: # 2 Exhibit) (cv, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
Leader Technologies, Inc., v. Facebook, Inc. Doc. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A. Standard of Review Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 USC 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) Plaintiff(s), ) ) vs ) SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEP'T, et ) ) al, ) ) Defendant(s). ) ELWYN BRADY DAVIS, No C 06-5629 VRW (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL (Doc # 2) Plaintiff, a prisoner at the San Francisco County Jail, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 USC 1983 alleging that on December 17, 2004 he was hit by a car and taken to San Francisco General Hospital by a San Francisco police officer. Plaintiff seeks damages on the ground that the police officer failed to finish his police report and that the driver of the car that hit him was intoxicated. Plaintiff also seeks to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 USC 1915. DISCUSSION Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint "is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted," or "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." Id 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F2d 696, 699 (9th Cir 1990). To state a claim under 42 USC 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v Atkins, 487 US 42, 48 (1988). B. Legal Claims Plaintiff's allegations that the officer failed to finish his police report must be dismissed because they amount to no more than negligence and it is wellestablished that the Constitution does not guarantee due care on the part of state officials; liability for negligently inflicted harm is categorically beneath the threshold of constitutional due process. County of Sacramento v Lewis, 523 US 833, 849 (1998). Failure to finish a police report simply is not the sort of official action likely to rise to the conscience-shocking level required to support a substantive due process claim under 1983. See id. Plaintiff's allegations that the driver of the car that hit him was intoxicated also must be dismissed. A private individual does not act under color of state law, an essential element of a 1983 action. Gomez v Toledo, 446 US 635, 640 (1980). Purely private conduct, no matter how wrongful, is not covered under 1983. Ouzts v Maryland Nat'l Ins Co, 505 F2d 547, 559 (9th Cir 1974). Simply put: There is no right to be free from the infliction of constitutional deprivations by private individuals. Van Ort v Estate of Stanewich, 92 F3d 831, 835 (9th Cir 1996). 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (doc # 2) is DENIED and the complaint is DISMISSED under the authority of 28 USC 1915A.. The clerk enter judgment in accordance with this order, terminate all pending motions as moot, and close the file. No fee is due. SO ORDERED. VAUGHN R WALKER United States District Chief Judge 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?