United States District Court, E.D. California
DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Together with his
complaint, he has filed an application to proceed in forma
has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required
by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to
proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.
is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for
this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By
this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial
filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct
the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing
fee from plaintiff's trust account and forward it to the
Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated
for monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding
month's income credited to plaintiff's prison trust
account. These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate
agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in
plaintiff's account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee
is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court
determines that ... the action or appeal (i) is frivolous or
malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). This provision applies to all
actions filed in forma pauperis, whether or not the plaintiff
is incarcerated. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,
1129 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254
F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam).
1983 “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of
any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws of the United States.” Wilder
v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990)
(quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Section 1983 is not itself a
source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method
for vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere.
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989).
state a claim under § 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); Ketchum v. Alameda
Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).
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 to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. Facial
plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a
defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations
are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.
as the Court can determine, plaintiff's claims arose
prior to his incarceration. He brings this action for damages
and injunctive relief against the “Sacramento City
Police Dispatch Unit” of the “Sacramento City
Police Officers, ” “fire men” of the
“Sacramento [City and/or County] Fire Department,
” and “ambulance paramedics” of
“Sacramento Ambulance Transportation.”
allegations may be fairly summarized as follows:
first claim is for “false imprisonment.” In
support of this claim, plaintiff alleges that, on an
unspecified date, he was arrested for driving under the
influence (“DUI”) even though he was not driving
his car or even inside of a parked car at the time. The
arresting officers dispatched the fire department and
paramedics, who took plaintiff to Kaiser Hospital. Plaintiff
remained at the hospital for one hour before he was
discharged. Several months later, plaintiff went to court for