United States District Court, N.D. California
WILLIAM E. BROWN, Plaintiff,
C. E. DUCART, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; ADDRESSING
PENDING MOTIONS Re: Dkt. Nos. 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 18
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
William E. Brown, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison
("PBSP"), filed this pro se civil rights
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By separate order,
plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. For the reasons stated below, the complaint is
dismissed with leave to amend.
Standard of Review
courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in
which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify
cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims which are
frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who
is immune from such relief. Id. §
1915A(b)(1)-(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally
construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't,
901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).
"Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need
only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim
is and the grounds upon which it rests." Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (omission in original)
(internal quotations and citations omitted). Although a
complaint does not need detailed factual allegations [in
order to state a claim], . . . a plaintiff's obligation
to provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief
requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.
. . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations
omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."
Id. at 570.
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by
the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated,
and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person
acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
portion of the complaint where the inmate is to write his
statement of the claim, plaintiff wrote:
1st and 14th Amendment based on (1) Retaliation, for
Plaintiff invoking his 1st Amendment protected right to
petition or redress the gov. (2) Racial Discrimination (3)
Religious Infringement or free Exercise Clause (4) Equal
Protection Due Process clause. (see: Hillary R. Clinton i.e.
AEDPA-REFORM Attach) 8th Amendment violation (1) illegal
Excessive use of force (2) Threats of Water Board "which
led to stomach infection, " and other threats or Racial
Slurs Made Against Plaintiff and His Members of United
K.A.G.E Brothers & Sisters Antihostility Group (Religious
Activity Group) (3) Medical, Mental Health deliberate
indifference (4) false imprisonment via SHU (false STG'
115 or Retainment) (5) illegal strip search triggered (4th &
13th Amendment violation) (6) CDCR, PBSP intent to trigger
Anti-terrorist Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) violation
See: Attached Hillary R. Clinton (AEDPA-Reform) refer to
(Ashker v. Gov) litigants etc.
Compl. at 3.
Court cannot discern what facts plaintiff is basing his
claims on. Plaintiff's allegations fail to state clearly
what happened, when it happened, what each defendant did, and
how those actions or inactions rise to the level of a federal
constitutional violation. For the most part, plaintiff
attaches grievances, court filings, and other documents to
his complaint, apparently as a way to explain his problem.
The Court will not read through exhibits to piece together a
claim for a plaintiff who has not pled one. The lack of
detail prevents the Court from determining which claims
deserve a response and from whom, and also prevents
individual defendants from framing a response to the
Court will dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. In his
amended complaint, plaintiff must specifically identify what
each named defendant did or did not do with regard to each
separate claim. Sweeping conclusory allegations will not
suffice. Plaintiff should not refer to the defendants as a
group (e.g., "the defendants"); rather, he should
identify each involved defendant by name and link each of
them to his claims by explaining what each involved defendant
did or failed to do that caused a violation of his rights.
See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir.
1988). Plaintiff is cautioned that there is no respondeat
superior liability under § 1983, i.e. no liability under
the theory that one is responsible for the ...