Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01474/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01474-3/pdf.json

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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

Jeffrey M. Brousseau,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 05-1474 RRB PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

Ed McNair, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoNovember 30, 2005, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint

for failure to state a claim and explained to plaintiff the

requirements of an amended complaint. Plaintiff has filed an

amended complaint.

I have reviewed plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915A and find it fails to state a claim for relief.

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must

allege an identified defendant deprived plaintiff of a right

secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States 

Case 2:05-cv-01474-RRB-EFB Document 14 Filed 01/24/06 Page 1 of 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

1 I note plaintiff is now in prison and since he seeks injunctive

relief only his claims likely are moot. See Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S.

486, 496 (1969)(a case is moot when the issues presented are no longer 'live'

or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome); Cantrell v.

City of Long Beach, 241 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2001). 

2

while acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S.

42, 48-49 (1988). 

It is sufficient, for example, to state a claim for

violation of the federal constitutional guarantee of due process

of law, to allege that an identified state actor denied plaintiff

a specific right protected by the federal constitution without

procedures required by the constitution to ensure fairness,

specifying the omission, or deliberately abused his power without

any reasonable justification that he acted in aid of any

government interest or objective and only to oppress in a way

that shocks the conscience. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539,

563-566 (1974); Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952).

Plaintiff alleges that he was found to have violated

conditions of parole and, as a result, he was forced to relocate,

that his parole officer refuses to change the conditions of his

parole and that defendants harassed plaintiff’s relatives to

locate plaintiff and arrest him.

These allegations fail to state a claim for relief.1

For these reasons, I hereby recommend this action be

dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. See Lopez v.

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1128 (9th Cir. 2000) (indigent prisoner

proceeding without counsel must be given leave to file amended

Case 2:05-cv-01474-RRB-EFB Document 14 Filed 01/24/06 Page 2 of 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

3

complaint unless the court can rule out any possibility that the

plaintiff could state a claim).

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Within 20 days after being

served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may

file written objections. The document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 

The district judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings

and recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: January 24, 2006. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01474-RRB-EFB Document 14 Filed 01/24/06 Page 3 of 3