Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02704/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02704-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUOC XUONG LUU, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

I.N.S., et al, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-2704 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND AND

INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CLERK

(Docket No. 4)

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a prisoner of the State of California incarcerated at California State

Prison-Solano in Vacaville, California, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. The complaint is largely incomprehensible, however, it appears that Plaintiff

may be complaining about an immigration detainer hold placed on him. Plaintiff also

seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 4). In this order, the Court

dismisses the complaint with leave to amend and orders Plaintiff to file an amended

complaint within thirty days from the date of this order. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

Plaintiff’s complaint to the Court is largely incomprehensible because it does not

clearly state the facts regarding his legal challenge. Instead, Plaintiff uses flowery legal

language, such as discussions of “natural law” and makes biblical references. However,

Plaintiff has failed to set forth sufficiently clear facts for the Court to discern the nature

of his complaint. The complaint fails to state a claim for relief. 

Case 3:07-cv-02704-JSW Document 5 Filed 10/15/07 Page 1 of 5
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

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the

complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a

defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be

liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two 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. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

ANALYSIS

To state a claim arising under federal law, it must be clear from the face of 

Plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint that there is a federal question. Easton v. Crossland

Mortgage Corp., 114 F.3d 979, 982 (9th Cir. 1997). While a plaintiff is not required to

plead his evidence “or specific factual details not ascertainable in advance of discovery,”

Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1340 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S.

1054 (1987), a pleading will not be sufficient to state a claim under § 1983 if the

allegations are mere conclusions, Kennedy v. H & M Landing, Inc., 529 F.2d 987, 989

(9th Cir. 1976). And a complaint that fails to state the specific acts of the defendant

which violated the plaintiff's rights fails to meet the requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Hutchinson v. United States, 677 F.2d 1322, 1328 n.5

(9th Cir. 1982). District courts must afford pro se prisoner litigants an opportunity to

amend to correct any deficiency in their complaints. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,

1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

Case 3:07-cv-02704-JSW Document 5 Filed 10/15/07 Page 2 of 5
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 3

In this case, Plaintiff has failed to clearly state the specifics that entitle him to

relief under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, specifically how his constitutional rights were violated,

and the conduct of each Defendant that he asserts is responsible for a constitutional

violation. As such, Plaintiff will be granted leave to amend to allege specifics regarding

any claims he has against any named defendant.

 In his amended complaint, Plaintiff must establish legal liability of each person or

entity for the claimed violation of his rights. Liability may be imposed on an individual

defendant under section 1983 if the plaintiff can show that the defendant proximately

caused the deprivation of a federally protected right. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628,

634 (9th Cir. 1988); Harris v. City of Roseburg, 664 F.2d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 1981). A

person deprives another of a constitutional right within the meaning of section 1983 if he

does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative act or omits to perform an act

which he is legally required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff

complains. See Leer, 844 F.2d at 633; see, e.g., Robins v. Meecham, 60 F.3d 1436, 1442

(9th Cir. 1995) (prison official's failure to intervene to prevent 8th Amendment violation

may be basis for liability). Sweeping conclusory allegations will not suffice; the plaintiff

must instead “set forth specific facts as to each individual defendant’s” deprivation of

protected rights. Leer, 844 F.2d at 634. 

Plaintiff may be complaining about the existence of an immigration “detainer” or

hold. However, Plaintiff does not clearly state what he contends is unlawful about the

detainer and why he is entitled to relief. Plaintiff will be provided with thirty days in

which to amend to correct the deficiencies in his complaint. Accordingly, the complaint

is DISMISSED. However, Plaintiff is provided with LEAVE TO AMEND his complaint

within thirty days, as set forth below.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, as

Case 3:07-cv-02704-JSW Document 5 Filed 10/15/07 Page 3 of 5
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 4

indicated above. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within thirty days from the

date of this order. The amendment must include the caption and civil case number used

in this order and the words “COURT ORDERED AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the

first page. Failure to amend within the designated time will result in the dismissal of the

complaint without prejudice. 

2. Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original

complaint. "[A] plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint

which are not alleged in the amended complaint." London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644

F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981). Defendants not named in an amended complaint are no

longer defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.), cert. denied,

506 U.S. 915 (1992). 

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. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 15, 2007

 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02704-JSW Document 5 Filed 10/15/07 Page 4 of 5
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

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUOC XUONG LUU,

Plaintiff,

 v.

INS et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-02704 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on October 15, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office

delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Quoc Xuong Luu

P-22522

California State Prison-Solano

PO Box 4000

Vacaville, CA 95696-4000

Dated: October 15, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:07-cv-02704-JSW Document 5 Filed 10/15/07 Page 5 of 5