Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Berna v. Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms

United States District Court, Eastern District of California

December 22, 2014

BRUCE BERNA, Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BUREAU OF FIREARMS, et al., Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS

On December 11, 2014, Plaintiff Bruce Berna ("Plaintiff) filed the complaint in this action. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint names the Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms and Sonia Rios as defendant in this action ("Defendants").

For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiffs complaint fails to state any cognizable claims and that Plaintiffs complaint should be dismissed, with leave to amend.

I.

SCREENING

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious, " that "fail[] to state a claim on which relief may be granted, " or that "seek[] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

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). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but "[f]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiffs rights. Jones v. Williams. 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiffs claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service. 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The "sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully" is not sufficient, and "facts that are 'merely consistent with' a defendant's liability" falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

II.

PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

Plaintiff alleges that he filed a "public records request" with the Bureau of Firearms five times over three months. The request concerned the seizure of Plaintiffs shotgun. Plaintiff alleges that these records are needed "to help prove ... their officers['] pejury under oath to falsely arrest [Plaintiff] and cause [Plaintiff] to be falsely imprisoned." (Compl., at pg. 5.)

Plaintiff also alleges that he executed a "power of attorney" in favor of Ron Hendricks. Plaintiff alleges that the Bureau of Firearms failed to turn over the records to Mr. Hendricks pursuant to the power of attorney.

Plaintiff requests copies of the documents requested in his records act request, costs, and that Defendants give "one mossberg shotgun" to Mr. Hendricks.

III.

...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.