United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO
FILING IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT; DISMISSING REMAINING CLAIMS
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; AND DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the R. J. Donovan
Correctional Facility (“RJDCF”), has filed a
pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, alleging constitutional violations that took
place when he was previously incarcerated at Salinas Valley
State Prison (“SVSP”) and High Desert State
Prison (“HDSP”). See Dkt. 1 at
However, he does not elaborate on the time-frame of when such
violations took place or whether Defendants are from SVSP or
HDSP. See Id. Plaintiff has filed an in forma
pauperis application, which will be granted in a
separate written Order. He also requests for appointment of
counsel. Dkt. 1 at 3.
is proper because the events giving rise to some of the
claims are alleged to have occurred at SVSP, which is located
in this judicial district. See 28 U.S.C. §
complaint, Plaintiff names the following Defendants, who
could be from either SVSP or HDSP: Acting Warden Tammatha
Foss; Plumber M. Johnson; Supervisor of Building Trades J.
Frailey; Associate Warden H. Wagner; ADA Coordinator R. St.
Andre; and “John Does.” Dkt. 1 at 1-2. Plaintiff
seeks monetary damages. Id. at 3.
Standard of Review
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 and internal quotation marks
omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint
“does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a
plaintiff's 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 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,
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).
Claims Against Defendants at HDSP
seems to be complaining of various problems during his
incarceration at HDSP, which is where he was incarcerated
prior to his transfer to SVSP. See Dkt. 1 at 3-4.
Because HDSP is located within the venue of the Eastern
District of California, any such claims are DISMISSED without
prejudice to Plaintiff refiling them in a new civil rights
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California. See In re Hall, 939 F.2d
802, 804 (9th Cir. 1991) (dismissal on venue grounds without
Remaining Claims Against ...