Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02373/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02373-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

N:\Pro - Se\7.2.2007\07-02373 Gonzales02373_dwlta.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES LARA GONZALES,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

CORRECTION OFFICER, et al.,

Defendant(s).

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-02373 JW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

On February 8, 2007, plaintiff, a state prisoner incarcerated at the Salinas

Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) in Soledad, California, filed a letter with this court

alleging that correctional officers were conspiring to murder him. On the same day,

the clerk notified petitioner that he must either submit an In Forma Pauperis

application or pay the full filing fees within thirty days or the action would be

dismissed. Although the deadline as since passed, in the interests of justice this

Court grants plaintiff an extension of time to file an application to proceed in forma

pauperis or pay the filing fee, as well as to file an amended complaint. 

///

///

Case 3:07-cv-02373-MHP Document 5 Filed 06/29/07 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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

N:\Pro - Se\7.2.2007\07-02373 Gonzales02373_dwlta.wpd 2

DISCUSSION

Liberally construed, plaintiff appears to be filing an action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983, which “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 elsewhere conferred. See Graham

v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989). To 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 County, 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir.

1987). 

Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under § 1983 if the

plaintiff can show that the defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a

federally protected right. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988);

Harris v. City of Roseburg, 664 F.2d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 1981). A person deprives

another of a constitutional right within the meaning of § 1983 if he does an

affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative act or omits to perform an act

which he is legally required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff

complains. See Leer, 844 F.2d at 633; Robins v. Meecham, 60 F.3d 1436, 1442 (9th

Cir. 1995). 

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under § 1983 for he has failed to allege

violations of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and that

the alleged violations were committed by a person acting under the color of state

law. See West, 487 U.S. at 48. Plaintiff must set forth specific facts as to each

individual defendant’s conduct that proximately caused a violation of his federally

protected rights. See Leer, 844 F.2d at 634. Plaintiff has not done so, having made

Case 3:07-cv-02373-MHP Document 5 Filed 06/29/07 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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

N:\Pro - Se\7.2.2007\07-02373 Gonzales02373_dwlta.wpd 3

no factual allegations as to each defendant’s conduct which proximately caused him

injury. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND to

attempt to allege cognizable claims pursuant to § 1983 in accordance with this order.

CONCLUSION

1. Plaintiff must either submit an In Forma Pauperis application or pay

the full filing fees within thirty (30) days or the action would be dismissed.

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 

Within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, plaintiff may file an AMENDED

COMPLAINT using the court’s form civil rights complaint. Plaintiff shall complete

the form, and include in the caption both the case number of this action (No. C 07-

02373 JW (PR)), and the phrase “AMENDED COMPLAINT.” 

3. The amended complaint supersedes the initial complaint and may not

incorporate by reference any parts of the original complaint; plaintiff must include in

the amended complaint all the allegations and claims he wishes to present.

4. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must 

keep the court informed of any 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 this action,

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), for failure to prosecute. 

5. The clerk shall enclose a copy of the court’s form complaint and an In

Forma Pauperis application with this order to the plaintiff. 

FAILURE TO FILE A TIMELY RESPONSE IN ACCORDANCE

WITH THIS ORDER WILL RESULT IN THE DISMISSAL OF THIS

ACTION WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF.

DATED: June 29, 2007 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge 

Case 3:07-cv-02373-MHP Document 5 Filed 06/29/07 Page 3 of 3