Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03045/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03045-3/pdf.json

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

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICK P. SMITH,

Plaintiff, 

 v.

PERRY, A., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-3045 WHA (PR) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

RECONSIDER

This case was opened when an envelope was received from plaintiff, an inmate of the

Contra Costa County Jail, containing three letters of complaint about events at the jail. In an

effort to protect plaintiff’s rights, they were treated as an attempt to open a new civil rights case.

Because the letters were not accompanied by a filing fee or application for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), the clerk sent plaintiff a notice to that effect.. Plaintiff filed

an IFP application, which suggested that he did indeed intend this to be a new case. 

In the initial review order the “complaint” was dismissed with leave to amend on a form

for prisoner Section 1983 complaints. Plaintiff amended. In the amended complaint plaintiff’s

description of his claim was: “[w]ill send copies of incident report A.S.A.P. Have sent

grievance letter copy wrote to board of supervisors, superior court, Lt. Schuler and U.S.D.C.” 

The Court again dismissed the complaint, this time without leave to amend, saying that “[t]his

in no way, shape or form is sufficient to state a claim for relief under Section 1983. . . . Plaintiff

was afforded an opportunity to state his claim and has failed to do so.”

Case 3:07-cv-03045-WHA Document 13 Filed 08/15/07 Page 1 of 2
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

1 The "no set of facts" language plaintiff quotes from Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41

(1957), was disapproved in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007). Conley

had stated "the accepted rule that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a

claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of

his claim which would entitle him to relief." Id. at 45-46. Bell Atlantic Corp. decided that

"this famous observation has earned its retirement. The phrase is best forgotten as an

incomplete, negative gloss on an accepted pleading standard." Bell Atlantic Corp, 127 S. Ct.

at 1969. 

2

Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the dismissal. He asserts that he should be

allowed to amend again. Plaintiff was afforded an opportunity to file an adequate complaint

and failed to make a serious attempt to take advantage of that opportunity.1

 The motion to

reconsider (document number 10 on the docket) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15 , 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.07\SMITH045.REC.wpd 

Case 3:07-cv-03045-WHA Document 13 Filed 08/15/07 Page 2 of 2