Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01160/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01160-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY FLETCHER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MENDEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-01160-YGR (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE CERTAIN CLAIMS TO 

BE REFILED IN EASTERN

DISTRICT; AND DISMISSING 

REMAINING CLAIMS WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND

Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”), 

filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint is now before 

the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A, along with his motion for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, which will be granted in a separate Order.

Plaintiff alleges violations of his constitutional rights while he was housed at: SVSP in 

January of 2016; the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“SATF”) in Corcoran in October of 

2015; and the California Health Care Facility (“CHCF”) in Stockton on an unknown date. See

Dkt. 1 at 3-9.1Plaintiff seeks monetary damages as well as injunctive relief.

Venue is proper because the events giving rise to some of the claims are alleged to have 

occurred at SVSP, which is located in this judicial district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). However, as 

mentioned above, Plaintiff also complains of various violations of his constitutional rights during 

his incarceration at SATF and CHCF, which are both located within the venue of the Eastern

District of California. Therefore, these claims are DISMISSED without prejudice to Plaintiff 

refiling them in a new civil rights action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District 

of California. See In re Hall, 939 F.2d 802, 804 (9th Cir. 1991) (dismissal on venue grounds 

without prejudice).

The only remaining claims are Plaintiff’s claims relating to constitutional violations at 

SVSP. However, this Court finds that the complaint is deficient as to these claims because it fails 

 

1

Page number citations refer to those assigned by the Court’s electronic case management 

filing system and not those assigned by Plaintiff.

Case 4:16-cv-01160-YGR Document 5 Filed 09/07/16 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

to provide information regarding the exhaustion of administrative remedies. See Dkt. 1 at 1-2. 

Accordingly, this Court has no choice but to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend.2 

Plaintiff is also advised that to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege 

that a person acting under the color of state law committed a violation of a right secured by the 

Constitution or laws of the United States. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Plaintiff must 

identify all defendants by name and state how each individual defendant violated a specific federal 

right.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 

1. Plaintiff’s claims relating to alleged violations of his constitutional rights during his 

incarceration at SATF and CHCF, including all claims against Defendants Doctor Saycom, SATF 

Warden and CHCF Warden, are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiff refiling them 

separately in new civil rights actions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

California. 

2. The remaining claims relating to alleged violations of his constitutional rights

during his incarceration at SVSP are DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, as indicated 

above, within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this Order is filed. The amended complaint must 

include the caption and civil case number used in this Order (C 16-01160 YGR (PR)) and the 

words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely 

replaces the prior pleadings, Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the prior pleadings by 

reference but must include in the amended complaint all the claims and allegations he wishes to 

present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Failure to amend within 

the designated time and in accordance with this Order will result in the dismissal of this 

action.

3. 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 fashion. 

 

2

 Exhaustion is mandatory and no longer left to the discretion of the district court. 

Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84 (2006) (citing Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739 (2001)).

Case 4:16-cv-01160-YGR Document 5 Filed 09/07/16 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 3-11 a party proceeding pro se whose address changes 

while an action is pending must promptly file a notice of change of address specifying the new 

address. See L.R. 3-11(a). The Court may dismiss without prejudice a complaint when: (1) mail 

directed to the pro se party by the Court has been returned to the Court as not deliverable, and 

(2) the Court fails to receive within sixty days of this return a written communication from the pro 

se party indicating a current address. See L.R. 3-11(b).

4. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff a blank civil rights complaint form along 

with his copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Court Judge

September 7, 2016

Case 4:16-cv-01160-YGR Document 5 Filed 09/07/16 Page 3 of 3