Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03251/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03251-0/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

Order of Dismissal

N:\Pro - Se\7.27.2007\06-03251 Gomis03251_dismissal.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTOINE GOMIS,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

UNITED AIRLINES,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-3251 JW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Docket No. 2)

Plaintiff, a detainee of the Department of Immigrations and Customs

Enforcement (“I.C.E.”) in Bakersfield, California, has filed a pro se civil rights

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges he will be ordered removed by

I.C.E. officials to France, his country of origin, and that he will be flown on defendant’s

airline. He seeks money damages, to have the removal order vacated, and to be released

from custody. Plaintiff requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. §

1915. (Docket No. 2). 

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

Case 5:06-cv-03251-JW Document 7 Filed 07/27/07 Page 1 of 3
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

Order of Dismissal

N:\Pro - Se\7.27.2007\06-03251 Gomis03251_dismissal.wpd 2

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 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. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims

Plaintiff’s claims against United Airlines is not a cognizable claim upon which

relief may be granted. To begin with, a private entity, such as defendant, generally does

not act under color of state law for purposes of a § 1983 action. See Gomez v. Toledo,

446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980). To be sure, action taken by private individuals or

organizations may be under color of state law when a challenged activity results from

the State’s exercise of coercive power; when the State provides significant

encouragement for the activity; or when a private actor operates as a willful participant

in joint activity with the State. See Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary Sch.

Athletic Ass’n, 531 U.S. 288, 295-96 (2001). Here, however, the allegations are that

plaintiff will be ordered removed to his country of origin by federal authorities, and that

defendant will be the airlines on which he flies. From these allegations, it is clear that

defendant’s alleged actions have not resulted from, been encouraged by, or been a

willing participation in the exercise of a state’s coercive power, been encouraged by a

state, or been carried out as a willful

In addition, the Supreme Court has consistently held that any claim by a prisoner

attacking the fact or duration of his confinement must be brought under the habeas

Case 5:06-cv-03251-JW Document 7 Filed 07/27/07 Page 2 of 3
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

Order of Dismissal

N:\Pro - Se\7.27.2007\06-03251 Gomis03251_dismissal.wpd

sections of Title 28 of the United States Code. See Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740,

747 (1998); Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411

U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Consequently, the remedies plaintiff seeks with respect to his

release from custody and voiding of the removal order may not be obtained in a civil

rights action, but rather must be raised in a habeas petition. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma

pauperis (Docket No. 2) is DENIED. No fee is due.

The Clerk shall close the file.

DATED: July 19, 2007 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-03251-JW Document 7 Filed 07/27/07 Page 3 of 3