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.

Briggs v. Freitas

United States District Court, N.D. California

March 22, 2017

JACK F. BRIGGS, Plaintiff,
v.
STEVE FREITAS, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

          MARIA-ELENA JAMES United States Magistrate Judge

         INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff, 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 amend.

         ANALYSIS

         A. Standard of Review

         A 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).

         To 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, 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:

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 prisoners!

Compl. at 3.

         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 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.

         In 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 ...


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.