Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-06002/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-06002-0/pdf.json

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

---

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 09-6002 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

 *E-Filed 6/28/10*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

JOHN HEMSLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICER LUNGER, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

No. C 09-6002 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

INTRODUCTION

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

§ 1983. The Court now reviews the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

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.

Case 5:09-cv-06002-LHK Document 8 Filed 06/28/10 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 09-6002 RS (PR)

2 ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

§ 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 

Plaintiff alleges that (1) Officer Lunger of the Hayward Police Department used

excessive force and violence to stop plaintiff’s vehicle on May 25 of an unspecified year; 

(2) an unidentified person used excessive force after stopping plaintiff’s vehicle on May 30

of an unspecified year; (3) the Saint Rose Hospital violated his privacy rights when it treated

plaintiff for his injuries; and (4) the Santa Rita Jail was deliberately indifferent to his medical

needs. 

Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim to relief

that is plausible on its face. As to claim one, plaintiff fails to specify the first name of

Officer Lunger, and does not specify the year and location of the alleged events. As to claim

two, plaintiff fails to name a defendant or specify the year and location of the alleged events. 

As to claim three, plaintiff has not shown that Saint Rose Hospital is a state actor subject to

Case 5:09-cv-06002-LHK Document 8 Filed 06/28/10 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 09-6002 RS (PR)

3 ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

liability under § 1983. As to claim four, plaintiff fails to name any defendants and how

specific defendants allegedly violated his rights. 

Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file an

amended complaint correcting the deficiencies described in this order within 30 days from

the date this order is filed. Failure to file an amended complaint by such time will result in

dismissal of the action without further notice to plaintiff. 

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

this order (09-6002 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. Failure to file

an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in dismissal of this action

without further notice to plaintiff.

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: June 28, 2010 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 5:09-cv-06002-LHK Document 8 Filed 06/28/10 Page 3 of 3