Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03839/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03839-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT O. COOPER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY

SHERIFF, et al.,

Defendants. _______________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

No. C 07-3839 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

On July 26, 2007, plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the abovetitled civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges he was falsely arrested and

imprisoned for probation violations, even though his probation period had ended. By

separate order filed concurrently herewith, plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in

forma pauperis. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and

dismiss any claims that 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. See id.

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v.

Case 3:07-cv-03839-MMC Document 5 Filed 01/02/08 Page 1 of 4
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

Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 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 alleged violation was

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

48 (1988).

B. Claims

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that on August 8, 2000, he was convicted of robbery

and sentenced to six months in jail, a fine, and three years probation, with the stipulation that

the probation requirement would be dropped if plaintiff paid the imposed fine. Plaintiff

alleges that although he paid the fine within one week of his release from jail, he

subsequently was arrested three times for probation violations, and on each occasion he was

incarcerated for more than thirty days in the San Francisco County Jail. He alleges he was

released each time after further investigation, and after his third arrest the presiding judge

apologized to him for the inconvenience he had suffered. Plaintiff claims his constitutional

rights were violated because he was arrested without probable cause and falsely imprisoned. 

He seeks monetary damages.

An arrest without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment and gives rise to a

claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Lee v. County of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d

668, 685 (9th Cir. 2001). Additionally, the loss of liberty caused by an individual’s mistaken

incarceration can give rise to a claim under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment. Id. at 683. 

Here, liberally construed, plaintiff’s complaint alleges his Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendment rights were violated because he was arrested on three separate occasions without

probable cause, and on each occasion he was incarcerated for more than thirty days. 

Plaintiff’s claims cannot proceed, however, because he has not adequately identified the

responsible defendants, or alleged with specificity how the defendants were involved in each

alleged incident of wrongful arrest and imprisonment. To state a claim under § 1983, a

plaintiff must set forth specific facts as to each individual defendant’s conduct that

Case 3:07-cv-03839-MMC Document 5 Filed 01/02/08 Page 2 of 4
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

proximately caused a violation of his constitutional rights. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628,

634 (9th Cir. 1988). In his complaint, plaintiff broadly claims that his constitutional rights

were violated on three unspecified occasions by defendants he identifies as “San Francisco

County Sheriff,” “Deputy Sheriffs S.F. County John Does 1-7,” and “S.F. Police Department

Officers John Does 1-7.” (Complaint at 2.) Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim against

the defendants because he has not identified any of them by name, and has not set forth

sufficient facts showing how each defendant’s actions caused him injury or harm. 

Accordingly, plaintiff will be given leave to amend the complaint to provide the names of the

defendants involved in the alleged constitutional violations, and to set forth specific facts

showing how each such defendant’s actions caused him injury or harm.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court orders as follows:

1. The complaint is hereby DISMISSED with leave to amend. Within thirty (30)

days of the date this order is filed, plaintiff may file an AMENDED COMPLAINT, using

the court’s form civil rights complaint, in order to cure the deficiencies noted above. 

Plaintiff shall complete the form, a copy of which is provided herewith, and include in the

caption both the case number of this action, No. C 07-3839 MMC (PR), and the phrase

“AMENDED COMPLAINT.” 

An amended complaint supersedes the initial complaint and may not incorporate by

reference any parts of the original complaint. London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811,

814 (9th Cir. 1981). Defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer

defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.1992). These rules govern

actions filed by pro se litigants as well as litigants represented by counsel. See King v.

Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). 

If plaintiff fails to timely file an amended complaint in conformity with this order, the

action will be dismissed.

2. 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

Case 3:07-cv-03839-MMC Document 5 Filed 01/02/08 Page 3 of 4
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

4

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.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 2, 2008 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge 

Case 3:07-cv-03839-MMC Document 5 Filed 01/02/08 Page 4 of 4