Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00099/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00099-5/pdf.json

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

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROYALTON MCCAMEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

OAKLAND POLICE DEPT.,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-00099-JST (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On November 28, 2014, plaintiff, who was then an inmate at the San Francisco County 

Jail, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Subsequent to filing the 

complaint, plaintiff informed the Court that he had been released and was residing in San 

Francisco. On May 26, 2015, the Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, explaining 

the deficiencies in the complaint that needed to be cured. Plaintiff has filed an amended 

complaint, which the Court now reviews pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any 

claims that 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 

(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 

Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Case 3:15-cv-00099-JST Document 23 Filed 10/28/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

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 1974. 

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 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. 

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims

In his original complaint, plaintiff alleged that the Oakland Police Department, along with 

various private actors and media outlets, made statements that plaintiff had “robbed, assaulted, 

carjacked, and kidnapped people.” Dkt. 2 at 3. According to plaintiff, these statements prompted 

an unnecessary “Amber Alert” and placed his life in danger, along with the lives of his daughter 

and granddaughter. See id. He did not provide dates or locations for the alleged incident(s).

In the Court’s order of dismissal with leave to amend, it was explained to plaintiff that

defamation alone is not a constitutional violation. Plaintiff was advised that to allege a 

constitutional violation, the loss of reputation much be accompanied by a more tangible interest

such as alteration or extinguishment of a right or status secured by state law or by the Bill of 

Rights. This has become known as the “stigma-plus” test. Humphries v. County of Los Angeles, 

554 F.3d 1170, 1185 (9th Cir. 2009). The Court also advised plaintiff that a Section 1983 claim

cannot be brought against private actors and dismissed all defendants other than the Oakland 

Police Department.

Case 3:15-cv-00099-JST Document 23 Filed 10/28/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

In his amended complaint, plaintiff has not alleged the elements of a “stigma-plus” claim. 

Rather, he names the same private defendants that were previously dismissed and repeats his 

allegations that he was wrongfully reported to be connected with various crimes, causing him 

humiliation and personal difficulties. As stated in the order of dismissal with leave to amend, the 

stigma-plus test cannot be met by alleging collateral consequences of the defamation, such as loss 

of business, public scorn, and potential loss of employment. See Cooper v. Dupnik, 924 F.2d 

1520, 1534 (9th Cir. 1991). Moreover, despite being instructed to do so, plaintiff again fails to 

provide dates or locations for the alleged incident(s), making it difficult to discern the basic 

contours of plaintiff’s claim. In sum, the amended complaint fails to correct the deficiencies in the 

first. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this case is DISMISSED because the amended complaint fails 

to state a cognizable claim for relief. Further leave to amend will not be granted because the Court 

already has explained to plaintiff the specific deficiencies in his pleading, and he has been unable 

or unwilling to correct them. 

The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 28, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00099-JST Document 23 Filed 10/28/15 Page 3 of 3