Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-08421/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-08421-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID S QUAIR,

Plaintiff,

v.

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-08421-JD 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The 

original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend and plaintiff has filed an amended 

complaint.

DISCUSSION

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). Pro se 

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th 

Cir. 1990).

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.” Although 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 

Case 3:19-cv-08421-JD Document 13 Filed 03/09/20 Page 1 of 3
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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, 679 (2009). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by 

the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was 

committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

LEGAL CLAIMS

In the original complaint, plaintiff sought to make out a variety of claims concerning the 

conditions of his incarceration. The Court noted that all of plaintiff’s claims lacked any factual 

allegations to support them, and so were not plausible claims. Plaintiff was provided an 

opportunity to amend to state with facts how specific defendants violated his constitutional rights.

The amended complaint did not do that. Plaintiff again alleges in a conclusory fashion that 

his conviction and conditions of confinement have resulted in the disregard for his life, liberty, 

health and safety. Plaintiff provides no facts or details, and fails to identify the actions of any 

specific defendant. 

These barebones allegations are not enough to proceed with this case. Because plaintiff 

has already been provided leave to amend and failed to address the shortcomings spelled out by 

the Court, further leave to amend is not warranted. The complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice 

for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2020

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-08421-JD Document 13 Filed 03/09/20 Page 2 of 3
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID S QUAIR,

Plaintiff,

v.

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-08421-JD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on March 9, 2020, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

David S Quair ID: BG0478

North Kern State Prison

Facility D

P.O. Box 5005

Delano, CA 93216-0567 

Dated: March 9, 2020

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO

Case 3:19-cv-08421-JD Document 13 Filed 03/09/20 Page 3 of 3