The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH THIRTY (30) DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND
On June 2, 2010, Plaintiff Henry William Telles ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint against Defendants City of Waterford, County of Stanislaus, "Waterford Police Officers," "Stanislaus County Sheriffs Deputies," and police officers Dennis Cordova, John Purch, Robert Fisher, Dan Bilbray, Mark Nunos, Braley, Paris, Heilman, Hinkle, Matos, Jenkins, and Kirkbridge ("Defendants") alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and claims for malicious prosecution, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, conspiracy, "inadequate supervision and training," and harassment. (Doc. 1.)
The basic allegations of Plaintiff's complaint relate to alleged mistreatment he has suffered from 1994 through 2010 at the hands of police officers employed by the City of Waterford and deputy sheriffs employed by the County of Stanislaus.
In cases where the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is required to screen each case, and shall dismiss the case at any time if the Court determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or the action or appeal is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
B. Failure to State a Claim
In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court uses the same pleading standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Under Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). "[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require 'detailed factual allegations,' but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, __ U.S. __, __, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). "[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). "[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are 'merely consistent with' a defendant's liability . . . 'stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Further, although a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff's legal conclusions as true. Id. "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
1. Section 1983 Claims for Civil Rights Violations
Section 1983 creates a cause of action against any person who, acting under color of state law, violates the constitutional rights of another person. 42 U.S.C. §1983. To state a Section 1983 claim a plaintiff must allege facts indicating that (1) the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under the color of state law, and (2) the conduct deprived ...