Smith v. Hedgepath et al

Filing 18

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 12/22/11. (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

JAMES E. SMITH,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
ANTHONY HEDGEPETH, et al.,

15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. C 11-0579 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 California State Prison - Corcoran, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
18
1983. 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.11\Smith579dis

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.

6

Legal Claims
On May 6, 2011, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s original complaint with leave to amend

7

because the complain was barely legible, and Plaintiff failed to provide any factual support to his

8

myriad of allegations. Moreover, he failed to identify Defendants, and link each Defendant to

9

each claim. The Court advised Plaintiff about the deficiencies in his complaint, and directed him

10

to file an amended complaint. On August 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of

11

time, and a proposed amended complaint. On September 19, 2011, the Court directed the Clerk

12

to file Plaintiff’s amended complaint. However, the amended complaint was still deficient.

13

Plaintiff still failed provide factual allegations describing his “entitlement to relief.” Further,

14

Plaintiff failed to identify each Defendant by name, and link each one to each allegation. The

15

Court advised Plaintiff that his amended complaint contained bald allegations without any

16

plausible facts to state a claim for relief. The Court gave Plaintiff one final opportunity file a

17

second amended complaint.

18

On October 21, 2011, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. However, the second

19

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

20

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

21

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

22
23
24
25
26

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

12/22/11

LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

27
28
Order of Dismissal
P:\pro-se\sj.lhk\cr.11\Smith579dis

2