Edmonds v. Alameda County District Attorney et al

Filing 6

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 10/21/11. (Attachments: # 1 certificate of mailing)(mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/21/2011)

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

CRAIG A. EDMONDS, JR.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
ALAMEDA COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY, et al.,

15
Defendants.
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. C 11-4320 LHK (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint against

18

Alameda County officials, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in

19

forma pauperis in a separate order. For the reasons stated below, the Court dismisses the

20

complaint with leave to amend.

21
22
23

DISCUSSION
A.

Standard of Review
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner

24

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See

25

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss

26

any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or

27

seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C.

28

§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v.
Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend
P:\pro-se\sj.lhk.\cr.11\Edmonds320dwla

1

Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).

2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the

3

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the

4

statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds

5

upon which it rests.”’” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted).

6

Although in order to state a claim, a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a

7

plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than

8

labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not

9

do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”

10

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A

11

complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id.

12

at 1974.

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

B.

18

Legal Claims
In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the Alameda County District Attorney’s office

19

stole some photographs of him that were sent by his mother through the mail. Plaintiff claims

20

that around May 20, 2011, his incoming and outgoing mail began disappearing, and he had not

21

been given notice that his mail was being withheld.

22

Prisoners enjoy a First Amendment right to send and receive mail. See Witherow v. Paff,

23

52 F.3d 264, 265 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407 (1989)). A

24

prison, however, may adopt regulations or practices which impinge on a prisoner’s First

25

Amendment rights as long as the regulations are “reasonably related to legitimate penological

26

interests.” See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). In the case of outgoing correspondence

27

from prisoners to non-prisoners, however, an exception to the Turner standard applies. Because

28

outgoing correspondence from prisoners does not, by its very nature, pose a serious threat to
Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend
P:\pro-se\sj.lhk.\cr.11\Edmonds320dwla

2

1

internal prison order and security, there must be a closer fit between any regulation or practice

2

affecting such correspondence and the purpose it purports to serve. See id. at 411-12.

3

As an initial matter, the court notes that local governments are “persons” subject to

4

liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 where official policy or custom causes a constitutional tort, see

5

Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978); however, a city or county may not be

6

held vicariously liable for the unconstitutional acts of its employees under the theory of

7

respondeat superior, see Board of Cty. Comm’rs. of Bryan Cty. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403

8

(1997). To impose municipal liability under Section 1983 for a violation of constitutional rights,

9

a plaintiff must show: (1) that the plaintiff possessed a constitutional right of which he or she

10

was deprived; (2) that the municipality had a policy; (3) that this policy amounts to deliberate

11

indifference to the plaintiff's constitutional rights; and (4) that the policy is the moving force

12

behind the constitutional violation. See Plumeau v. School Dist. #40 County of Yamhill, 130

13

F.3d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1997). Here, Plaintiff fails to allege that the stealing of his photographs

14

was committed pursuant to some official custom or policy.

15

Moreover, although the complaint names Defendants, Plaintiff must link each Defendant

16

to each claim by providing facts showing the basis for liability for each individual Defendant.

17

For example, plaintiff should allege which Defendants were responsible for mishandling or

18

tampering with his mail. He should not refer to them as a group (e.g., “the Defendants”); rather,

19

he should identify each involved person by name, and link each of them to the claim(s) by

20

explaining what each Defendant did or failed to do that caused a violation of his constitutional

21

rights. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988) (liability may be imposed on

22

individual defendant under § 1983 only if plaintiff can show that a defendant proximately caused

23

deprivation of federally protected right). Here, Plaintiff does not properly link the named

24

Defendants to any facts so as to show what each Defendant did or did not do that violated his

25

constitutional rights.

26
27

Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend to cure the
deficiencies above, if Plaintiff can do so in good faith.

28
Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend
P:\pro-se\sj.lhk.\cr.11\Edmonds320dwla

3

1

CONCLUSION

2

1.

The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend.

3

2.

Plaintiff shall file an AMENDED COMPLAINT within thirty days from the date

4

this order is filed to cure the deficiencies described above. The amended complaint must include

5

the caption and civil case number used in this order (C 11-4320 LHK (PR)) and the words

6

AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the

7

prior complaint by reference. Failure to file an amended complaint within thirty days and in

8

accordance with this order will result in dismissal of this action.

9

3.

Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint.

10

“[A] plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged

11

in the amended complaint.” London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981).

12

Defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants. See Ferdik v.

13

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992).

14

4.

It is the Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

15

Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice

16

of Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to

17

do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule

18

of Civil Procedure 41(b).

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
10/21/11
DATED:

20

LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend
P:\pro-se\sj.lhk.\cr.11\Edmonds320dwla

4