United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER GRANTING IFP AND RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action
brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed an
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(1) and (2). Accordingly, by separate order, the court
directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect and
forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee
as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) and (2).
Screening Requirement and Standards
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). The court must identify cognizable claims or
dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if
the complaint "is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, " or
"seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief." Id. § 1915A(b).
se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading
requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) "requires a complaint to include
a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant
fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which
it rests." BellAtl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson,
355 U.S. 41 (1957)). While the complaint must comply with the
"short and plaint statement" requirements of Rule
8, its allegations must also include the specificity required
by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must
contain more than "naked assertions, " "labels
and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action." Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555-557. In other words, "[t]hreadbare recitals
of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
conclusory statements do not suffice." Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 678.
a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have
facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
"A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon
which relief can be granted, the court must accept the
allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89
(2007), and construe the complaint in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes,
416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
court has reviewed plaintiffs amended complaint (ECF No. 6)
pursuant to § 1915 A and finds it must be
dismissed. The complaint alleges that the
confidentiality of plaintiff s personal information and
medical records was breached when an unencrypted laptop was
stolen from the vehicle of a California Correctional Health
Care Services ("CCHCS") employee. Attached to the
original complaint is a letter from CCHCS notifying plaintiff
of this "potential breach." ECF No. 1, Ex. A. The
letter noted that the laptop was password protected, and
informed plaintiff as follows:
We do not know if any sensitive information was contained in
the laptop. To the extent any sensitive information may have
been contained in the laptop, we do not know if the
information included any of your information. If your
information was included, the nature of the information may
have included confidential medical, mental health, and
custodial information. To the extent any sensitive
information may have been contained in the laptop, we
estimate that it would have been limited to information
related to your custody and care, if any, between 1996 and
Id. Plaintiff names as defendant Dr. Matolon, the
mental health supervisor at CCHCS. ECF No. 6. He claims that
the failure to encrypt the laptop was "deliberate",
that it violated various state laws, the Fourth Amendment,
and also demonstrates a conspiracy to deprive plaintiff of
equal protection and due process. Id. at 3.
Plaintiff also alleges that "someone has attempted to
file income taxes in [his] name." Id. As set
forth below, the complaint demonstrates a lack of standing
and otherwise fails to state a cognizable claim under the
plaintiff is required to establish standing for each claim he
asserts. DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S.
332, 352 (2006). If a plaintiff has no standing, the court
has no subject matter jurisdiction. Nat'l Wildlife
Fed'n v. Adams,629 F.2d 587, 593 n. 11 (9th Cir.
1980). There are three requirements that must be met for a
plaintiff to have standing: (1) the plaintiff must have
suffered an "injury in fact"-an invasion of a
legally protected interest which is both concrete and
particularized and actual or imminent; (2) there must be a
causal connection between the injury and the conduct
complained of; and (3) it must be likely that the injury will
be redressed ...