Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06635/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06635-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEX ESPINOZA, CASE NO. CV-F-03-6635 REC DLB

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RE DISMISSAL OF ACTION 

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

 

vs.

STEVE RAMER, et.al.,

Defendants.

 /

 After his original complaint was dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief, on

September 12, 2005, plaintiff proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed an amended complaint

alleging civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the

Court must conduct an initial review of the complaint for sufficiency to state a claim. The Court must

dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the Court determines that the action is legally “frivolous or

malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a

defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the court determines that the

complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the

complaint can be cured by amendment.

Case 1:03-cv-06635-REC-DLB Document 22 Filed 01/09/06 Page 1 of 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

In the amended complaint, like the original complaint, plaintiff alleges that on June 2, 2002, he

entered a Circle “K” store to purchase cigarettes. He states that he “jokingly” told defendant David

Bacon, a store employee, that he wanted all of his money. He states that Bacon did not take him

seriously but saw his cell phone and thought it was a gun. Plaintiff contends that Bacon then jumped

on him, knocking him to the ground and striking him on the head resulting a concussion for he was

hospitalized. He seeks monetary damages against the store owner, defendant Steve Ramer and defendant

Bacon.

At a minimum, in order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1)

a person was acting under color of state law at the time the act complained of was committed; and (2)

that person’s conduct deprived plaintiff of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution

or laws of the United States. Paratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981). To warrant relief under the

Civil Rights Act, a plaintiff must allege and show that defendant’s acts or omissions caused the

deprivation of his constitutionally protected rights. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1993).

Thus, the statute plainly requires that there be an actual causal connection or link between the actions

of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See Monell v.

Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). 

The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a

constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in

another’s affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the

deprivation of which the complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

Thus, the requisite causal connection can be established not only by some kind of direct personal

participation, but also by setting in motion a series of acts by other which the actor knows or reasonably

should know would cause others to inflict the constitutional injury. Id. This standard of causation

“...closely resembles the standard ‘foreseeability’ formulation of proximate cause.” Arnold v.

International Bus. Mach. Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981).

Generally, private parties are not acting under color of state law for purposes of an action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Price v. Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 707-708 (9th Cir. 1991). However, where a

private person conspires with state officials to deprive others of constitutional rights, the private party

is acting under color of state law. See Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 27-28 (1980); Kims v. Stone, 84

Case 1:03-cv-06635-REC-DLB Document 22 Filed 01/09/06 Page 2 of 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

F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 1996). Conclusory allegations are insufficient to establish that a private person

conspired with state officials. See Price, 939 F.2d at 708-709.

Because the only named defendants are private parties and plaintiff has failed to allege

deprivation of a constitutional right, plaintiff has failed to state a claim under §1983. 

The Court therefore recommends that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted. The Court does not recommend that leave to amend be granted because

plaintiff was already given the opportunity to file an amended compliant and was unable to cure the

deficiencies identified. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with

the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 6, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06635-REC-DLB Document 22 Filed 01/09/06 Page 3 of 3