Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04563/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04563-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CASSANDRA ROBERTS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CAROLE GROOM, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 14-cv-04563-EDL 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

Re: Dkt. No. 13 

Plaintiff Cassandra Roberts filed her complaint and Application to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis (“IFP Application”) on October 14, 2014. On October 21, 2014, this Court GRANTED 

Plaintiff’s IFP Application but reserved its determination of compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B). On October 22, 2014, Plaintiff consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). On November 4, 2014, this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s original complaint, 

reasoning that “Plaintiff’s complaint does not make any clear claims against any Defendant and is 

largely unintelligible” and instructing Plaintiff that any amended complaint “should clearly state 

Plaintiff’s factual allegations and make it plain which allegations and causes of action relate to 

which Defendants.” (Dkt. 9.) On December 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that 

does not resolve the deficiencies identified in this Court’s prior order. Although the amended 

complaint identifies specific causes of action against each Defendant, it does not clearly state the 

factual allegations supporting those causes of action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (requiring that a 

complaint include a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to 

relief”). Furthermore, the amended complaint appears to assert claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983 against non-governmental actors and state employees who may be entitled to qualified 

immunity. See Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 835 (1982) (“A claim may be brought 

Case 3:14-cv-04563-EDL Document 16 Filed 01/21/15 Page 1 of 2
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 Californi

a

under § 1983 only if the defendant acted ‘under color’ of state law.”); Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 

649 F.3d 1118, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Qualified immunity shields public officials from civil 

damages for performance of discretionary functions . . . . Qualified immunity protects all but the 

plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law . . . . [and] leaves ample room for 

mistaken judgments.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). 

Consequently, Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. Any 

amended complaint must be filed by February 13, 2015, and must address the issues outlined 

above. Plaintiff is cautioned that this Court is disinclined to allow subsequent amendments. 

Plaintiff is again advised that she may wish to seek assistance from the Legal Help Center, a free 

service of the Volunteer Legal Services Program, by calling (415) 782-8982 or signing up for an 

appointment on the 15th Floor of the Courthouse, Room 2796. At the Legal Help Center, plaintiffs 

may speak with an attorney who may be able to provide basic legal help, but not legal 

representation. The Court also urges plaintiffs to obtain a copy of the Pro Se Handbook, available 

free of charge from the Court's website (www.cand.uscourts.gov) or in the Clerk's Office on the 

16th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 21, 2015 

______________________________________ 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:14-cv-04563-EDL Document 16 Filed 01/21/15 Page 2 of 2