United States District Court, N.D. California
JACK F. BRIGGS, Plaintiff,
STEVE FREITAS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
MARIA-ELENA JAMES United States Magistrate Judge
an inmate at the Sonoma County Jail proceeding pro se, filed
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
He is 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
Standard of Review
federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any
case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental
entity, or from an officer or an employee of a governmental
entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court
must identify any 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. See 28
U.S.C. § 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).
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege two elements: (1) that a right secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States was violated; and
(2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under
the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42,
portion of the court's form complaint where the inmate is
to write his statement of the claim, plaintiff wrote:
On 10/13/16 D/O H. Paulson violated my civil rights by
subjecting myself and others to Mass. Punishment. D/O H.
Paulson also violated my rights to Due Process by taking our
O.C.A. from us without a Rule Violation Reports or a finding
of guilt to said rule violation.
D/O H. Paulson also violated my “Due Process”
rights by denying me a grievance when asked for one, so as I
could utilize the Grievance Procedure set in place by the
Institution's Title 15 rules and regulations of
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 defendants did, and how
those actions or inactions rise to the level of a federal
constitutional violation. This case cannot proceed without
more information. Plaintiff shall be granted leave to amend
to attempt to cure these deficiencies.
amending his complaint, plaintiff is advised that the
“[f]actual 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 must allege facts that “allow
the court to draw the reasonable inference ...