United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
H. KOH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed
an amended civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
after the court advised him to correct deficiencies in his
original complaint. For the reasons stated below, the court
dismisses the amended complaint for failure to state a claim.
Standard of review
federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any
case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental
entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the
court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any
claims that 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, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v.
Pacifica Police Dep't., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.
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. See West v.
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
plaintiff's original complaint, the court could not
determine what plaintiff's claims were against which
defendant. Plaintiff appeared to allege that his
constitutional rights were being violated after a conviction
from Del Norte County Superior Court. He also referred to his
personal and real property being improperly taken from him.
He also mentioned an assault and battery against him that
occurred within the prison. The court noted that
plaintiff's complaint was filled with legal terminology
and a recitation of elements for different causes of action,
but plaintiff failed to include sufficient facts to support
any of his claims. The court directed plaintiff to file an
amended complaint to cure these deficiencies.
amended complaint, plaintiff names as defendants: Scott
Kernan, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”); Kathleen Allison,
Director of CDCR; David Baughman, Acting Warden of California
State Prison - Sacramento; Dale P. Trigg, District Attorney
of Del Norte County; Clark E. Ducart, Warden of Pelican Bay
State Prison; and Judge William H. Falloit, Superior Court
Judge of Del Norte County.
amended complaint reads, the court again cannot determine
what plaintiff's claims are. Plaintiff again failed to
include sufficient facts to support any of claim. For
example, plaintiff states:
When Defendant, Dale P. Trigg, is the District Attorney.
(18c) A public official appointed or elected to represent the
state in criminal cases in the Judicial District of Del Norte
County. Coconspired with the Defendant, Clark E. Ducart to
IMPOUND (2).To take and retain possession of <plaintiff,
MELVIN JOSEPH SIMMONS with the usage> of (something, such
as a forged document <intrinsic fraud>to be produced as
evidence) in preparation of a criminal prosecution. Case
number CR-PB-16-5022. Reckless knowledge. In
unconstitutionally Depriving Plaintiff, MELVIN JOSEPH SIMMONS
of plaintiff's Personal Liberty and Incorporeal Property
.To maintain forced labor and services under false pretenses
while holding plaintiff MELVIN JOSEPH SIMMONS under duress of
goods. For performance of an unlawful obligation between the
Defendants unfavorably affecting the rights of Plaintiff,
MELVIN JOSEPH SIMMONSa person who is not a party to the
Am. Compl. ¶ 9. In addition, plaintiff makes the
following conclusory allegations with no supporting facts. He
alleges that Acting Warden Baughman is holding plaintiff in
involuntary servitude. Plaintiff also states that District
Attorney Trigg and Warden Ducart held plaintiff under false
pretenses. Plaintiff further claims that Judge Falloit
imposed a wrongful levy fine and tax sanction, and ordered
the seizure and sale of plaintiff's personal and private
property. Plaintiff alleges that District Attorney Trigg is
liable for perpetuating an unlawful injury to plaintiff, who
was a victim of human trafficking, and that Warden Ducart
punished plaintiff for exercising plaintiff's
“protective activities” and allowing plaintiff to
be displaced in solitary confinement.
court previously advised plaintiff that in his amended
complaint, plaintiff must “set forth specific facts as
to each individual defendant's” actions which
violated his or her rights. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d
628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff was told that he must
name each individual defendant, and clearly state what each
defendant did that made him or her liable for violating
plaintiff's constitutional rights by specifically stating
what happened, when it happened, what each defendant did, and
how those actions or inactions rise to the level of a federal
constitutional violation. Plaintiff has not done so.
has not provided sufficient facts in his amended complaint to
plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief. Accordingly,
plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed for failure to
state a claim. Because plaintiff has already had an
opportunity to ...