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)

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