United States District Court, N.D. California
GERROD L. HERNDON, Plaintiff,
v.
PAROLE AGENT TOM PORTER, Defendant.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge
INTRODUCTION
Gerrod
L. Herndon, a California state prisoner currently
incarcerated at North Kern State Prison and proceeding pro
se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis in a separate order. Based upon a review of the
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, it is dismissed
with leave to amend.
DISCUSSION
A.
Standard of Review
Federal
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).
To
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). B. Legal Claims In the
portion of the court’s form complaint where the inmate
is to write his statement of the claim, plaintiff wrote:
He “Tom Porter” has failed to grant the
state[’]s wishes. He’s denied my federal rights
to participate in the mainline of society. I’ve
completed parole and he’s filed more paperwork to keep
me confined to state and county jails. I try to work with him
and all the peace officers about his matter but they insist
on lock-up and search warrants. Unlawful probable cause
reasonable doubt.
Compl. at 3.
In the
portion of the court’s form complaint where the inmate
is to state his requested relief, plaintiff wrote:
When I parole in less than 180 days. Given the discharge of
state parole. Northern California. A written apology. Due
Process Clause reasonably related to legitimate penological
interests. Clemency. Expungement.
Id.
The
Court cannot discern what facts plaintiff is basing his
claims on. Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state
clearly what happened, when it happened, what defendant did,
and how those actions or inactions rise to the level of a
federal constitutional violation. This action cannot proceed
without more information. Plaintiff shall be granted leave to
amend to attempt to cure these deficiencies. In his amended
complaint, plaintiff should clarify whether he was released
on parole but is now incarcerated on a new charge or whether
he was never released on parole but believes he is entitled
to be.
In
amending his complaint, plaintiff is advised that the Federal
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.” “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). “Factual allegations must be enough
to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 553-56 (2007) (citations omitted). To state a claim
that is plausible on its face, a plaintiff ...