United States District Court, N.D. California, Eureka Division
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND RE: DKT. NO.
M. ILLMAN United States Magistrate Judge.
a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court granted his
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt.
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). 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. Id. at 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).
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not
necessary; the statement need only 'give the defendant
fair notice of what the ... . claim is and the grounds upon
which it rests.'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). Although, in order to
state a claim, a complaint "does not need detailed
factual allegations, ... a plaintiffs obligation to provide
the 'grounds' of his 'entitle[ment] to relief
requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.
. . . factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations
omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."
Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has
recently explained the "plausible on its face"
standard of Twombly: "While legal conclusions
can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be
supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded
factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and
then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an
entitlement to relief." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
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 deprivation was committed by a
person acting under the color of state law. West v.
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48(1988).
has submitted several filings with a wide variety of claims.
It is not clear what claims Plaintiff wishes to make, and
thus, the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend to
provide more information and a clearer recitation of the
allegations. Plaintiffs most recent filing (dkt. 12) appears
to concern the percentage of funds being taken out of
Plaintiff s prison trust account for court filings. Plaintiff
names as defendants a correctional officer and a deputy
attorney general who were involved in a prior lawsuit.
is informed that "the Supreme Court has determined that
certain government officials require absolute immunity from
liability in order to enable them to function independently
and effectively, without fear of intimidation or harassment.
Accordingly, the Court has granted absolute immunity to . . .
judges, prosecutors, . . . and officials performing
quasijudicial functions." Fry v. Melaragno, 939
F.2d 832, 835-36 (9th Cir. 1991) (internal quotation marks,
citations, and footnote omitted). When sued in official and
individual capacities, the Ninth Circuit has held that an
attorney general or deputy attorney general has absolute
immunity, except they "are not immune from any actions
that are wholly unrelated to or outside of their official
duties." Bty-Magee v. California, 236 F.3d
1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Fry, 939 F.2d
at 837 (government lawyers are absolutely immune for actions
"intimately" or "closely" associated with
judicial process). "Whether the government attorney is
representing the plaintiff or the defendant, or is conducting
a civil trial, criminal prosecution or agency hearing,
absolute immunity is necessary to assure that. . . advocates
. . . can perform their respective functions without
harassment or intimidation." Id. (citation
complaint is dismissed with leave to amend for Plaintiff to
present his allegations in one filing. He must identify
specific defendants and describe how they violated his
constitutional rights. If Plaintiff seeks relief against the
deputy attorney general, he must demonstrate why immunity
does not apply and how the claim regarding his prison trust
account presents a federal claim. Plaintiff should also
describe where the alleged incidents occurred. If these
events occurred while Plaintiff has been incarcerated in
California State Prison Los Angeles, then this action will be
motion for an extension (dkt. 2) is DENIED.
The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to
amend in accordance with the standards set forth above. The
amended complaint must be filed within twenty-eight
(28) days of the date this order is filed and must
include the caption and civil case number used in this order
and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an
amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint,
Plaintiff must include all the claims he wishes to present in
it. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th
Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the original
complaint by reference. Failure to amend within the
designated time will result in the dismissal of this case.
it is the plaintiffs responsibility to prosecute this case.
Plaintiff must keep the court informed of any change of
address by filing a separate paper with the clerk titled
"Notice of Change of Address," and must comply with
the court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so
may result in the dismissal of ...