Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-07408/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-07408-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

VICTOR CADENA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AMANDA NEILSON, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 18-cv-07408-RS (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state any claim for relief. Accordingly, this 

federal civil rights action is DISMISSED. 

DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review 

A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial 

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal 

conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably 

be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 

(9th Cir. 1994). 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. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

Case 3:18-cv-07408-RS Document 10 Filed 05/20/19 Page 1 of 3
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

CASE NO. 18-cv-07408-RS

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 California 

B. Legal Claims 

1. Original Complaint 

The original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff had alleged in 

a highly conclusory fashion that “ICC [at Pelican Bay State Prison] knowingly placed my 

life endanger [sic] and ignored my claims that people will be assaulted and people where 

stabbed [sic]!”; his mental health and anxiety are at “crazy” levels; his grievances were 

cancelled to conceal staff misconduct; he was denied being placed on suicide watch; and 

appeals coordinators were obstructing his grievances. (Compl., Dkt. No. 5 at 3.) 

The allegations were conclusory and therefore insufficient. For example, stating 

that ICC had placed his life in danger or that his grievances were being cancelled unjustly 

did not state a claim. No defendants were named, nor were their actions described in any 

way that would give rise to liability. Federal pleading rules “demand[] more than an 

unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. 

A pleading offering “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 

cause of action will not do.” Id. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders “naked 

assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual enhancement.” Id. at 557. 

 The claims were also unrelated. Claims must be based on “the same transaction, 

occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” and pose a “question of law or fact 

common to all defendants.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Plaintiff was directed to select one 

cause of action from his list to proceed with, e.g., mental health care, or failure to protect, 

or the processing of grievances, etc. 

 2. First Amended Complaint 

 The first amended complaint is not an improvement. The thrust of the new 

complaint is that his jailors ignored threats to him and to other prisoners. Other prisoners, 

but not plaintiff, were injured as a result. 

 These allegations fail to state any claim for relief. First, plaintiff cannot pursue 

claims on behalf of the prisoners who were allegedly injured. Rather, he can raise only 

Case 3:18-cv-07408-RS Document 10 Filed 05/20/19 Page 2 of 3
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

CASE NO. 18-cv-07408-RS

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 California

those claims in which he has a particularized injury, one that affects him personally and 

individually. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1548 (2016). Otherwise, the Court 

lacks jurisdiction to entertain his suit. Id. Harm to other prisoners does not qualify as a 

particularized injury to plaintiff. Furthermore, the allegations are conclusory. No 

allegedly injured prisoner is named nor is there any description of how they were injured

(or by whom) nor any description of the alleged threats. 

Second, plaintiff has not shown or even hinted at any concrete injury to himself. He 

states there was a note in his file that a “federal wire tap” [sic] caught “a Mexican Mafia 

member” placing “a hit on me for murder,” but defendants took no action. (Am. Compl., 

Dkt. No. 9 at 3.) This does not qualify as an injury. The Constitution requires a plaintiff 

to allege he has suffered a concrete, particularized injury which is actual or imminent, not 

conjectural or hypothetical. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992).

Plaintiff’s allegations give no indication when the threat was to be carried out or even that 

it was credible. He therefore has not then shown there was an actual or imminent concrete 

particularized injury. 

CONCLUSION

This federal civil rights action is DISMISSED without prejudice. If plaintiff 

honestly believes he can state a claim for relief, he may file a motion to reopen. Any such 

motion must contain an amended complaint that states cognizable claims. Any amended 

complaint must conform in all respects with the Court’s instructions in the prior order on 

filing an amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 8.) The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of 

defendants, and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May ___, 2019

_________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-07408-RS Document 10 Filed 05/20/19 Page 3 of 3