Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02172/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02172-0/pdf.json

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

RICKY PAUL SMITH,

Plaintiff, 

 v.

NURSE LOIS; ENGELSTAD, W.;

DEMICHIEL, K.; and KEFFER, K.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-2172 WHA (PR) 

DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND

Plaintiff, a former inmate of the Contra Costa County Jail now at San Quentin State

Prison, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff also requests

leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

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). Pro

se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699

(9th Cir. 1990).

Case 3:07-cv-02172-WHA Document 7 Filed 11/16/07 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

1 Bell Atlantic Corp. disapproved the "no set of facts" language in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957). 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

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, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). 

Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed 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, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A

complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id.

at 1986-87.1

 

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 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 contends that “nurse Lois, medical staff and deputies denied medical attention.” 

He also contends they harass him by waking him up by shining flashlights in his face and

kicking his cell door. 

The harassment claim is not cognizable and will be dismissed without leave to amend. 

See Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 738 (9th Cir. 1997). The medical care claim is

conclusory, and thus fails to set out a plausible claim, but might be saved by amendment. If

plaintiff chooses to amend he should provide the facts of his claim, such as what the medical

Case 3:07-cv-02172-WHA Document 7 Filed 11/16/07 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

3

need was, why it was serious, and what the defendants did or did not do that he contends

violated his rights. 

CONCLUSION

1. The harassment claim is DISMISSED without leave to amend.

2. The medical claim is DISMISSED with leave to amend, as indicated above, within

thirty days from the date of this order. The amended complaint 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 not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. 

Failure to amend within the designated time will result in the dismissal of these claims.

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

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

Change of Address.” Papers intended to be filed in this case should be addressed to the clerk

and not to the undersigned. Petitioner also 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: November 16 , 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.07\SMITH2172.dwlta.wpd 

Case 3:07-cv-02172-WHA Document 7 Filed 11/16/07 Page 3 of 3