Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00071/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00071-2/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

*E-Filed 5/28/10*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

VINCENT ROSENBALM,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD FOULK, et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 10-0071 RS (PR)

ORDER REOPENING ACTION;

PARTIAL DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE

TO AMEND

This is a federal civil rights action filed by a pro se state prisoner pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1983 against defendant Edward Foulk, Executive Director of Napa State Hospital,

and his staff for allegedly violating plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 

DISCUSSION

A. Reopening Action

This action was dismissed without prejudice on April 12, 2010 and the file closed

because plaintiff failed timely to pay the filing fee or to file a complete application to

proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has now paid the filing fee. Accordingly, the judgment

and the order of dismissal (Docket Nos. 8 & 9) are VACATED. The action is hereby

Case 3:10-cv-00071-RS Document 17 Filed 05/28/10 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 No. C 10-0071 RS (PR)

ORDER

2

reopened. The Court now reviews the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

B. 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). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint,

or any portion of it, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is

immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must nonetheless be liberally

construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two 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. West v.

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff alleges that in 2009, defendant Foulk, Director of Napa State Hospital, and

his staff violated petitioner’s constitutional rights by falsely imprisoning him after a state

court had ordered plaintiff released. Liberally construed, plaintiff’s claim against defendant

Foulk is cognizable under § 1983. 

Plaintiff’s claims against Foulk’s staff are DISMISSED with leave to amend. Rather

than alleging claims against the “staff,” plaintiff must allege specific facts against specific

defendants detailing how specific individuals may have violated his constitutional rights. 

Accordingly, the claims against the staff are DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff

shall file an amended complaint correcting the deficiencies of these claims as described in

this order within 30 days from the date this order is filed. If plaintiff fails to amend his

claims in a timely fashion, the Court will regard the claims against the staff as waived, and

will order service on the sole cognizable claim against defendant Foulk.

Case 3:10-cv-00071-RS Document 17 Filed 05/28/10 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 No. C 10-0071 RS (PR)

ORDER

3

The first amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in

this order (10-0071 RS (PR)) and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first

page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the previous complaints, plaintiff

must include in his first amended complaint all the claims he wishes to present and all of the

defendants he wishes to sue. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the prior complaint by reference. Accordingly,

plaintiff is directed to restate his claim against defendant Foulk, and to correct the

deficiencies of the claims against the staff. 

It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice

of Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion or ask

for an extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in the dismissal of this action

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 27, 2010 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00071-RS Document 17 Filed 05/28/10 Page 3 of 3