Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-00419/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-00419-0/pdf.json

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

---

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BRANDON ALEXANDER FAVOR,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MARCIA STEVENSON-BRIDGES, et 

al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 19-00419 BLF (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner at the California Correctional Institution (“CCI”) in 

Tehachapi, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against 

two individuals. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be 

addressed in a separate order. 

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 

Case 5:19-cv-00419-BLF Document 10 Filed 05/13/19 Page 1 of 4
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 Californi

a

upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 

from such relief. See id. § 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). 

 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. Plaintiff’s Claims 

Plaintiff claims that Defendant Monee Stevenson “collects information unnecessary 

with respect to right of privacy,” and that Defendant Marcia Stevenson-Bridges “used 

force and elder status to use plaintiff in effort collecting information violating privacy 

right, cruel and unusual punishment, tampering with respect under due process claimant 

[sic].” (Compl. at 3.) Plaintiff seeks damages and a “bond on own recognizance release.” 

(Id.) 

The complaint is deficient for several reasons. It is unclear from the allegations 

whether the named defendants are persons acting under the color of state law or private 

individuals. If the latter, then Plaintiff cannot state a § 1983 claim against them because a 

private individual does not act under color of state law, an essential element of a § 1983 

action. See Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980). Purely private conduct, no 

matter how wrongful, is not covered under § 1983. See Ouzts v. Maryland Nat'l Ins. Co., 

505 F.2d 547, 550 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 949 (1975). Simply put: There is 

no right to be free from the infliction of constitutional deprivations by private individuals. 

See Van Ort v. Estate of Stanewich, 92 F.3d 831, 835 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Furthermore, it is unclear whether venue is proper in this district because Plaintiff 

provides no information with respect to: (1) where any defendant resides, or if all 

defendants are residents of the state in which the district is located; and (2) where a 

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial 

Case 5:19-cv-00419-BLF Document 10 Filed 05/13/19 Page 2 of 4
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 Californi

a

part of property that is the subject of the action is situated. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

Lastly, the Court notes that Plaintiff has filed a copy of a “Notice of Motion and 

Motion for Bail or Release on Own Recognizance Pending Appeal” which is addressed to 

the Los Angeles County Superior Court. (Docket No. 2.) Accordingly, it appears that 

Plaintiff has recently suffered a conviction out of that court. If the instant action for 

damages is based on an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other 

harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, 

a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed 

on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal 

authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance 

of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994). A claim for 

damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so 

invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. Id. at 487. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s request for 

a “bond on own recognizance release” is not a type of relief that can be granted in a § 1983 

action. Rather, challenges to the lawfulness of confinement or to particulars affecting its 

duration are the province of habeas corpus.’” Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 579 

(2006) (quoting Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004)). If Plaintiff is a convicted 

felon seeking release, he must challenge the lawfulness of his confinement by filing a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus after exhausting state court remedies. 

Plaintiff shall be granted leave to file an amended complaint to attempt to state a § 

1983 in this Court which is not barred by Heck and show that venue is proper here. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 

 The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Within twenty-eight 

(28) days of the date this order is filed, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint to correct 

the deficiencies discussed above. The amended complaint must include the caption and 

Case 5:19-cv-00419-BLF Document 10 Filed 05/13/19 Page 3 of 4
4 

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 Californi

a

civil case number used in this order, Case No. C 19-00419 BLF (PR), and the words 

“AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. If using the court form complaint, Plaintiff 

must answer all the questions on the form in order for the action to proceed. 

 The amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as 

non-existent. Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). 

Consequently, claims not included in an amended complaint are no longer claims and 

defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants. See Ferdik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.1992). 

Failure to respond in accordance with this order in the time provided will 

result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice to 

Plaintiff. 

The Clerk shall include two copies of the court’s complaint with a copy of this 

order to Plaintiff. 

IT IS SO ORDERED 

Dated: _____________________ ________________________ 

BETH LABSON FREEMAN 

United States District Judge 

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend 

PRO-SE\BLF\CR.19\00419Favor_dwlta 

Case 5:19-cv-00419-BLF Document 10 Filed 05/13/19 Page 4 of 4