Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01306/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01306-0/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN E. KING,

Plaintiff,

v.

AARON ASHLEY, et al,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-1306 KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983, together with a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915. However, plaintiff did not file his application for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis on the form used by this district. Accordingly, plaintiff’s application will be dismissed 

and plaintiff is provided the opportunity to submit the application on the appropriate form.1 

Moreover, plaintiff is cautioned that his complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to 

state a cognizable civil rights claim. 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. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

 

1

 If leave to file in forma pauperis is granted, plaintiff will still be required to pay the $350.00 

filing fee but will be allowed to pay it in installments. 

Case 2:14-cv-01306-KJM-KJN Document 5 Filed 06/11/14 Page 1 of 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

2

Here, plaintiff claims that he was a victim of an assault by two security guards who 

worked for Cal Force Security at Valley Mack Plaza, and names the security guards, as well as 

Cal Force Security Company and Valley Mack Plaza as defendants. However, a private 

individual does not act under color of state law, an essential element of a § 1983 action. See

Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980). Purely private conduct, no matter how wrongful, is 

not covered under § 1983. See Ouzts v. Maryland Nat'l Ins. Co., 505 F.2d 547, 550 (9th Cir.

1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 949 (1975). There is no right to be free from the infliction of 

constitutional deprivations by private individuals. See Van Ort v. Estate of Stanewich, 92 F.3d 

831, 835 (9th Cir. 1996). In other words, the defendants who allegedly assaulted plaintiff were 

private security guards who were not acting under color of state law. See Stanley v. Goodwin, 

475 F. Supp. 2d 1026 (D. Hawaii Aug. 8, 2006) (security guard was not a state actor for purposes 

of § 1983). 

Therefore, plaintiff’s claims are subject to dismissal for failure to state a cognizable civil 

rights claim. Because plaintiff has not yet filed the appropriate application to proceed in forma 

pauperis, the court grants plaintiff an opportunity to voluntarily dismiss his action rather than 

incur the $350.00 filing fee in an action subject to dismissal for failure to state a cognizable civil 

rights claim.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is dismissed without prejudice; 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a new Application to Proceed In 

Forma Pauperis By a Prisoner; and

3. Plaintiff shall submit, within thirty days from the date of this order, either a:

a. Completed application to proceed in forma pauperis; or 

b. Request to voluntarily dismiss this action.

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be 

dismissed without prejudice. 

Dated: June 10, 2014

king1306.3d

Case 2:14-cv-01306-KJM-KJN Document 5 Filed 06/11/14 Page 2 of 2