Liberatore v. State of California et al

Filing 12

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 10/13/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/13/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 RONALD STEVENS LIBERATORE, 9 Case No. 17-cv-03270 NC (PR) Plaintiff, 10 ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants. 13 14 15 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an amended civil rights complaint, 16 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons stated below, the Court dismisses the 17 amended complaint. 18 19 20 DISCUSSION A. Standard of review A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 21 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 22 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any 23 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 24 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 25 26 27 28 Case No. 17-cv-03270 NC (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL 1 1 from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be 2 liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 3 1988). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 4 5 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 6 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 7 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 8 B. 9 Legal claims In Plaintiff’s original complaint, the Court could not determine what Plaintiff’s allegations were. The Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend; directed 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 Plaintiff to identify specific Defendants and link each Defendant to each claim; provided 12 the elements of a deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim; and warned 13 Plaintiff that his amended complaint must comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 14 18 and 20. 15 Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint. A review of the complaint shows that 16 Plaintiff has not cured any of the deficiencies about which the Court warned him, and the 17 amended complaint still fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. The Court finds that 18 further leave to amend would be futile. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s complaint is 19 DISMISSED. CONCLUSION 20 21 Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 DATED: October 13, 2017 NATHANAEL M. COUSINS United States Magistrate Judge 25 26 27 28 Case No. 17-cv-03270 NC (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL 2

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?