Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02023/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02023-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICKY PAUL SMITH,

Plaintiff, 

 v.

BLACK, N.; SILVA, J.; SULLIVAN,

R.; and MUSE, D., 

Defendants. /

No. C 07-2023 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

State 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.

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-02023-WHA Document 10 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 defendant Black has harassed him by shining a sighting light from

a tazer on his face and by taking a copy of a letter out of his cell. Allegations of harassment and

abuse fail to state a claim cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d

732, 738 (9th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff’s claim about the sighting light from the tazer might be

liberally construed to be a claim that Black threatened him, but such claims also are not

cognizable. See Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff has thus failed to

allege facts sufficient to state a claim for relief which is plausible on its face. 

Case 3:07-cv-02023-WHA Document 10 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

CONCLUSION

The complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend. The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16 , 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.07\SMITH2023.DSM.wpd

Case 3:07-cv-02023-WHA Document 10 Filed 11/16/07 Page 3 of 3