Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03950/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03950-0/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

AMANDA STOKES,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

Sergeant COLOBALE and Sergeant

JOHNSON, 

Defendants. /

No. C 05-3950 PJH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a state prisoner. The events giving rise to

the complaint apparently occurred at the San Mateo County Jail, where plaintiff formerly

was housed. The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend in the initial review order. 

Plaintiff has amended. The court will now review the amended claims to determine

whether they should be served. See 28 U.S.C § 1915A(b)(1),(2) (court must screen

prisoner complaints and dismiss 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). 

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

Case 4:05-cv-03950-PJH Document 13 Filed 02/29/08 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

2

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, 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. 

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 

The original complaint was dismissed because plaintiff provided only a conclusory

allegation that she had been sexually assaulted and beaten, without mentioning the only

defendant named in the caption, Sergeant Johnson, and because it was unclear who the

defendants were intended to be. In the section of the form which asked for the names and

addresses of the defendants, she had written: “Sgt John” and “Sgt Colobale.” Not only

were they not the defendants named in the caption, but they also were not mentioned in the

statement of the claim.

In the amendment plaintiff still lists only one defendant in the caption, this time

Sergeant Colobale rather than Johnson. In the page seven list of defendants she lists both

Johnson and Colobale. In her statement of claim she says: “I had no rights to freedom of

speech. When trying to voice my opinion, she would have 6 to 8 men come in the room

Case 4:05-cv-03950-PJH Document 13 Filed 02/29/08 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

and take my clothes of[f] me, put me in a chair and beat me. For no reason. I was told

she’s very intimidated by me.” 

The problem is that there are two defendants, Colobale and Johnson, and it is not

possible to tell from the allegations quoted above which defendant plaintiff contends

caused her to be tied to a chair and beaten for expressing her opinion. In addition, plaintiff

mentions only one person (“she”) in the statement of claim, but there are two defendants;

there are no facts alleged as the second defendant, whichever one is not the one who

ordered the beating. Plaintiff also fails to say when the beating occurred, which would

make it difficult for defendants to respond. For these reasons, the complaint must be once

again dismissed with leave to amend. 

CONCLUSION

1. For the foregoing reasons, the case 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.

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

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

“Notice of Change of Address,” and 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: February 29, 2008. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.05\STOKES950.DWL2.wpd

Case 4:05-cv-03950-PJH Document 13 Filed 02/29/08 Page 3 of 3