Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05866/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05866-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRY HAWES, 

Plaintiff, 

 v.

JERRY BROWN; JENNIFER KENT,

Defendants.

/

No. C 15-5866 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

This is a pro se civil rights complaint filed by a California prisoner proceeding pro se

under 42 U.S.C. 1983. He seeks money damages from the Governor of California and Jennifer

Kent, the Director of the California Department of Health. For the reasons discussed below, the

complaint is DISMISSED.

DISCUSSION

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal 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).

Federal 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

Case 3:15-cv-05866-WHA Document 6 Filed 02/02/16 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds

upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations 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, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A

complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id.

at 1974. Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901

F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

B. LEGAL CLAIMS

Plaintiff alleges that he was issued a medi-cal “choice form” only seven days after his

arrest in 2005. According to plaintiff, such a form is issued to a county jail inmate when the

inmate has been found incompetent in order to place him or her in a conservatorship and send

him or her to a state mental hospital. Plaintiff complains that medi-cal violated his right to due

process by giving him a form so soon because he had not yet been found mentally incompetent

by the court. Plaintiff was found mentally incompetent several months later, in December 2005. 

To 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 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins,

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Plaintiff cites no authority, nor does any appear to exist, that the

federal constitutional right to due process is violated when medi-cal issues a choice form or

changes the benefits offered to an inmate upon their arrest and placement in custody. There is

nothing in the form, moreover, that indicates that he was placed in a conservatorship at that time

or that his medical benefits were compromised. Nor is there any authority that being placed in a

conservatorship would implicate his federal constitutional right to due process. Accordingly, he

has failed to state a cognizable basis for relief under Section 1983.

Leave to amend would be futile because plaintiff cannot submit any facts surrounding

Case 3:15-cv-05866-WHA Document 6 Filed 02/02/16 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

medi-cal’s issuance of a “choice form” that would implicate his federal constitutional guarantee

to due process. See Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007) (a pro se

complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim “where it appears beyond doubt that the

plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief”); see

also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set out above, this action is DISMISSED.

The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 1 , 2016. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:15-cv-05866-WHA Document 6 Filed 02/02/16 Page 3 of 3