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
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?