Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_14-cv-05497/USCOURTS-cand-1_14-cv-05497-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

EUREKA DIVISION

DENNIS BROWN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

WARDEN RON DAVIS, et. al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 14-5497 NJV (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a prisoner detained in Alabama, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend and

plaintiff has filed an amended complaint. (Docs.11,13.)

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

Case 1:14-cv-05497-NJV Document 17 Filed 04/02/15 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

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, 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, 556 U.S. 662,

679 (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 he is a former California State prisoner who had been incarcerated in

San Quentin State Prison and is now being held in county jail in Alabama for a probation

violation. He states that in 1981 while in San Quentin State Prison, he was implanted with

electronic devices for the purpose of surveillance. He states that in 2001 he was offered

one and a half million dollars to have the devices removes but he refused. As a result he

and his family and friends have been the target of threats and violence. He contends that

in 2014 he was assaulted by two unidentified men who stated they were representatives

from California and the Federal Communications Commission became involved. Plaintiff

also argues that correctional officials in Alabama are interfering with his ability to litigate this

and other related cases.

Case 1:14-cv-05497-NJV Document 17 Filed 04/02/15 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

 Plaintiff was previously informed that in order to obtain relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983, he must describe how a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States

was violated and that it was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. 

Plaintiff has failed to cure the deficiencies in this amended complaint and demonstrate a

viable claim against any defendant in California who was acting under color of state law. 

Many of the allegations against people residing in California would also be time barred. To

the extent that correctional officials in Alabama are hindering plaintiff’s ability to litigate

cases, he must file a case in that state. Because plaintiff has already been granted leave

to amend and as allowing further amendment would be futile, this case is dismissed with

prejudice.

CONCLUSION

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

2. The Clerk shall close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2, 2015. 

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:14-cv-05497-NJV Document 17 Filed 04/02/15 Page 3 of 3