Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00336/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00336-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Reverend NAAMAN L. LAUDERDALE,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

UPS Store owners RIC and LAURIE

LOUIE,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-0336 PJH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §

1983. He also requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Venue is proper in this district because a substantial part of the events giving rise to

the action occurred in this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

DISCUSSION

A. 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). 

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).

Case 4:05-cv-00336-PJH Document 6 Filed 04/11/06 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

2

B. Duplicate case numbers

Plaintiff has written to the court expressing confusion regarding three cases he says

he filed at about the same time. He attached to the letter a complaint which carries the

clerk’s official case number stamp showing the case number of this case, but which is

against Washington Mutual Bank and which is entirely different from the complaint in this

case. This court does not have on file any case by this plaintiff against Washington Mutual. 

It seems possible that the clerk thought that the Washington Mutual complaint was a copy of

the complaint in this case and returned it to plaintiff as his file-stamped copy.

In any event, this case, case number C 05-0336 PJH (PR), is Lauderdale v. Louie. 

Because plaintiff does not have a case on file against Washington Mutual, he will have to file

a new case if he wishes to pursue that claim. 

C. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff contends that defendants, who are the owners of a UPS Store, violated his

privacy in disregard of their contractual obligations; encouraged “malicious prosecution”

against him; posted personal financial data regarding him with intent to defame;

“mishandled” mail received at their store; and defamed his character. The defendants are

not state actors, so cannot be sued under Section 1983. See West, 487 U.S. at 48 (element

of section 1983 claims is that defendants acted under color of state law). In addition,

plaintiff does not allege federal constitutional violations, even if the acts alleged had been

performed by state actors. The petition will be dismissed.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. His motion for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis is DENIED. No fee is due. The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2006. PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.05\LAUDERDALE336.DSM United States District Judge 

Case 4:05-cv-00336-PJH Document 6 Filed 04/11/06 Page 2 of 2