Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05448/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05448-1/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 1 Plaintiff is currently housed in La Palma Correctional Center in Arizona. 

No. C 09-5448 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

*E-Filed 6/15/10*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

JOSE MENDOZA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES SCHOMIG, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

No. C 09-5448 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

This is a civil rights action filed by a pro se state prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Plaintiff, formerly a California state prisoner, alleges that he received inadequate

medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment while housed at Soledad State Prison.1

The original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend because plaintiff failed to

name defendants or allege specific facts on which relief could be granted. Plaintiff has filed

an amended complaint, which the Court now reviews pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

Case 3:09-cv-05448-RS Document 15 Filed 06/15/10 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 09-5448 RS (PR)

2 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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 be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica

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

A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim

to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal conclusions

cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from

the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 (9th Cir. 1994). 

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. Legal Claims 

According to plaintiff, he suffered physical injuries in a vehicle accident which

occurred while he was being transported from San Quentin to Soledad. He further contends

that medical treatment was delayed and that when care was given, it was constitutionally

inadequate. Plaintiff also contends that California Highway Patrol Officers failed to assist

plaintiff and other prisoners after the accident. Plaintiff brings both federal and state law

Case 3:09-cv-05448-RS Document 15 Filed 06/15/10 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 09-5448 RS (PR)

3 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

claims.

Plaintiff, with one exception, fails to list any defendant by name. Rather he lists as

defendants John Doe #1, the bus driver, and John Doe #3, a registered nurse. Without the

names of specific defendants, an adequate description of the specific acts each individual

defendant allegedly committed, and how those alleged acts violated his constitutional rights,

the Court cannot determine whether plaintiff has stated claims for relief, nor, certainly, can it

order service of the complaint.

Plaintiff names one defendant, G. Kalisher, a physician. The amended complaint,

however, fails to allege specific facts as to Kalisher’s acts or omissions. While plaintiff says

that there was a failure to diagnose and treat plaintiff, and that he received pain medications

that upset his stomach, he no where alleges that Kalisher was the person responsible, either

directly or indirectly, for such alleged treatment. Plaintiff has not stated a plausible claim for

relief. 

Plaintiff has been unable to state claims for relief in either complaint. Accordingly,

the action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff having failed to state claims for relief, the action is DISMISSED without

prejudice. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of defendants, and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 15, 2010 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

 

Case 3:09-cv-05448-RS Document 15 Filed 06/15/10 Page 3 of 3