Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-07492/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-07492-0/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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT J. ALEXANDER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TARGET INCORPORATED, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 19-cv-07492-PJH 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND 

Plaintiff, a detainee, proceeds with a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

DISCUSSION 

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). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and 

dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. 

Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement 

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not 

necessary; the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim 

is and the grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) 

(citations omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed 

Case 4:19-cv-07492-PJH Document 5 Filed 12/04/19 Page 1 of 4
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 Californi

a

factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment] 

to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the 

elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to 

raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 

U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state 

a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme 

Court has recently explained the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal 

conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual 

allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their 

veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

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 deprivation was committed by a person acting under the 

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

LEGAL CLAIMS 

Plaintiff alleges that his rights were violated when he was detained at a Target 

retail store. 

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). Simply put: 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). 

Action taken by private individuals or organizations may be under color of state 

law “if, though only if, there is such a close nexus between the State and the challenged 

action that seemingly private behavior may be fairly treated as that of the State itself. 

What is fairly attributable is a matter of normative judgment, and the criteria lack rigid 

Case 4:19-cv-07492-PJH Document 5 Filed 12/04/19 Page 2 of 4
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 Californi

a

simplicity. . . . [N]o one fact can function as a necessary condition across the board for 

finding state action; nor is any set of circumstances absolutely sufficient, for there may be 

some countervailing reason against attributing activity to the government.” Brentwood 

Academy v. Tennessee Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 531 U.S. 288, 295-96 (2001) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). “Even facts that suffice to show public action (or, 

standing alone, would require such a finding) may be outweighed in the name of some 

value at odds with finding public accountability in the circumstances.” See id. at 303. 

Plaintiff alleges that loss prevention staff at a Target retail store tackled him and 

then detained him without reading him is Miranda rights, they handcuffed him, denied him 

an attorney and access to his medication and a restroom. As currently plead, plaintiff 

fails to state a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants were not state 

actors, rather they were employees at a retail store and plaintiff has not shown they were 

acting under color of state law. While plaintiff could seek relief in state court, he has not 

set forth a claim for relief in this court. Plaintiff has also named the police department as 

a defendant but there are no allegations against any individual officer.1 The complaint is 

dismissed with leave to amend to provide more information and state a federal claim. 

CONCLUSION 

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the 

standards set forth above. The amended complaint must be filed no later than January 

6, 2020 and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the 

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

completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims he 

wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may 

 

1 Plaintiff is also informed that in order to recover damages for an allegedly 

unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose 

unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 plaintiff 

must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, 

expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make 

such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of 

habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994). 

Case 4:19-cv-07492-PJH Document 5 Filed 12/04/19 Page 3 of 4
4 

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 Californi

a

not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to file amended 

complaint may result in dismissal of this action. 

2. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed 

“Notice of 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 for failure to prosecute 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 4, 2019 

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 

United States District Judge 

/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton 

Case 4:19-cv-07492-PJH Document 5 Filed 12/04/19 Page 4 of 4