United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THIS CASE BE
DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM,
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER
(ECF NO. 1) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE (21)
August 25, 2017, Richard Acord (“Plaintiff”),
appearing pro se and in forma pauperis,
commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by
the filing of a Complaint. (ECF No. 1). The Complaint alleges
that Defendants Champions Recovery Alternatives, Maria
Stevens, Randy Hano, and Coven Hardcastle breached their
contractual, legal, and moral obligation to maintain
January 30, 2018, the Court screened the Complaint and
determined that it fails to state any cognizable claims. (ECF
No. 7). Specifically, the Court concluded that Plaintiff
failed to allege that Defendants are state actors or acted
under the direction of or in cooperation with any state
screening order directed Plaintiff to file an amended
complaint or notify the Court that he wishes to stand on the
Complaint, subject to the issuance of findings and
recommendations to the assigned district judge, within thirty
days of service of the order. Id. The Court also
warned Plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint or
to notify the court that he wishes to stand on the Complaint
could result in the dismissal of this case. Id.
thirty-day period has expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an
amended complaint or notified the Court that he wishes to
stand on the Complaint. Accordingly, the Court recommends
that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to
state a claim, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply
with a court order. Plaintiff may file objections within
twenty-one days from the date of service of these findings
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must conduct a review
of an in forma pauperis complaint to determine
whether it “state[s] a claim on which relief may be
granted, ” is “frivolous or malicious, ” or
“seek[s] monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.” If the Court determines that
the complaint fails to state a claim, it must dismiss the
complaint. Id. Leave to amend may be granted to the
extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by
amendment. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106
(9th Cir. 1995).
complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . .
. .” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations
are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible
on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 663 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While
factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions
are not. Id. at 678.
determining whether a complaint states an actionable claim,
the Court must accept the allegations in the complaint as
true, Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Trs. of Rex Hospital, 425
U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe pro se pleadings
liberally in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff,
Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000),
and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff's favor.
Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).
Pleadings of pro se plaintiffs “must be held
to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342
(9th Cir. 2010) (holding that pro se complaints
should continue to be liberally construed after
alleges that in July and August 2016, he was a client of
Champions Recovery Alternatives' Samuels' House
Residential Treatment Program and a client of the other
Defendants. Defendants have a contractual, legal, and moral
obligation to maintain client confidentiality, even after
clients are discharged from their treatment programs, unless
information about the client becomes public through the
filing of a criminal complaint.
was discharged from the treatment program without warning,
and without an opportunity to defend himself, when he was
allegedly involved in an incident with a female staff member
of Samuels' House. No charges were brought against
Plaintiff for the alleged incident. Plaintiff was, however,
on house arrest through the “Kings County E.M.S.
System” and was returned to custody due to his
discharge from Samuels' House.
the booking process, Plaintiff called Robert Jeffries, a
resident of Samuels' House, who said, “Don't
worry brother, I'm going to squash that bullshit.”
This, Plaintiff alleges, serves as evidence that Defendants
breached their duty of client confidentiality almost
immediately upon his removal from Samuels' House by Kings
County E.M.S. officers. During the booking process, Plaintiff
was also approached by Kings County Jail Classification staff
regarding concerns for his safety in the jail population due
to the nature of the alleged incident at Samuels' House.
This, Plaintiff alleges, serves as evidence that Kings County
Jail had knowledge of Plaintiff's phone call with Mr.
Jeffries, or that Samuels' House breached their duty of
further alleges that he has had to answer numerous
allegations and accusations in person and on social media
regarding his alleged behavior in the fourteen months since
his discharge from Samuels' House. He has been threatened
numerous times due to the allegations made against him at
Samuels' House. Plaintiff was returned to the custody of
Kings County Jail on an unrelated matter on June 22, 2017. He
has been physically assaulted by multiple inmates as a direct
result of his discharge from Samuels' House. Plaintiff
believes there can be no other explanation for the
accusations, threats, and assault he has incurred, other than
Samuels' House's breach of client confidentiality.