Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00205/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00205-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

BRUCE A. ROUSE,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

EDMUND G. BROWN, et. al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 13-1020 PJH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Corcoran Prison, has filed a pro se

civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in

forma pauperis in a separate order.

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).

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 factual

Case 1:15-cv-00205-AWI-DLB Document 4 Filed 03/22/13 Page 1 of 4
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

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, 129 S.Ct.

1937, 1950 (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). 

B. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff states that the entire California prison system is severely overcrowded as

demonstrated by the favorable decision in Brown v. Plata, 131 S.Ct. 1910 (2011). Plaintiff

seeks damages in the amount of one hundred and five million dollars, to be released from

prison and have his criminal record expunged. Plaintiff provides no specific allegations

regarding how the overcrowding has adversely affected him, instead discussing the history

of several prison class action cases and concluding that he is entitled to the relief he

requests. Named as defendants are the governor, director of CDCR and the state court

judge who sentenced plaintiff to prison.

Allegations of overcrowding, alone, as plaintiff has alleged here, are insufficient to

state a claim under the Eighth Amendment. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 348

(1981); Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of Corr., 869 F.2d 461, 471 (9th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff's claim

is cognizable where it is alleged that crowding has caused an increase in violence or has

Case 1:15-cv-00205-AWI-DLB Document 4 Filed 03/22/13 Page 2 of 4
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

reduced the provision of other constitutionally required services, or has reached a level

where the institution is no longer fit for human habitation. See Balla, 869 F.2d at 471. 

Here, plaintiff has not alleged specific injuries he has suffered due to the overcrowding.

To the extent plaintiff may be seeking equitable and injunctive relief involving the

very same events and same claims being litigated in the above class action, his claims still

fail. Individual suits for injunctive and equitable relief from alleged unconstitutional prison

conditions cannot be brought where there is a pending class action suit involving the same

subject matter. McNeil v. Guthrie, 945 F.2d 1163, 1165 (10th Cir.1991); Gillespie v.

Crawford, 858 F.2d 1101, 1103 (5th Cir.1988) (en banc). Individual members of the class,

like plaintiff, “may assert any equitable or declaratory claims they have, but they must do so

by urging further actions through the class representative and attorney, including contempt

proceedings, or by intervention in the class action.” Id. For these reasons, dismissal is

appropriate because this type of relief can be granted only in the class actions. See

Spears v. Johnson, 859 F.2d 853, 855 (11th Cir. 1988), vacated in part on other grounds,

876 F.2d 1485 (11th Cir. 1989); Gillespie, 858 F.2d at 1102.

"Under Ninth Circuit case law, district courts are only required to grant leave to

amend if a complaint can possibly be saved. Courts are not required to grant leave to

amend if a complaint lacks merit entirely." Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir.

2000); see also, Smith v. Pacific Properties and Development Corp., 358 F.3d 1097, 1106

(9th Cir. 2004), citing Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995) ("a district

court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made,

unless it determines that the pleading could not be cured by the allegation of other facts."). 

This appears to be one of those relatively rare cases when to grant plaintiff leave to amend

would be patently futile based on the discussion above, as plaintiff has not even attempted

to allege an injury.

Case 1:15-cv-00205-AWI-DLB Document 4 Filed 03/22/13 Page 3 of 4
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

4

CONCLUSION

This action is DISMISSED with PREJUDICE for the reasons set forth above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 22, 2013. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.13\Rouse1020.dis.wpd

Case 1:15-cv-00205-AWI-DLB Document 4 Filed 03/22/13 Page 4 of 4