Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00977/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00977-1/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

C 15-977 LB

ORDER

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

San Francisco Division

STEVE GARRISON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

GOVERNOR BROWN; et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. C 15-977 LB

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND 

[Re: ECF Nos. 1 and 6]

INTRODUCTION

Steve Garrison, an inmate at the Santa Clara County Jail, filed this pro se civil rights action

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. ECF No. 1 at 5. His

complaint is now before the court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 because he has applied to

proceed in forma pauperis. This order dismisses the complaint, and allows Mr. Garrison to file an

amended complaint. 

STATEMENT

The complaint provides the following statement of Mr. Garrison's claim: "My custody is a case

of Federal Human Traifficing [sic], and has [illegible word] for all of CA since 1976. The President

is not responding, a RICO act is wide open, will discuss at hearing. The past courts have not issued

summonses in any cases [illegible word] all cases so far by default, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

Case 3:15-cv-00977-LB Document 8 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

C 15-977 LB

ORDER 2

4." ECF No. 1 at 4 (errors in source).

A couple of weeks after filing the complaint, Mr. filed a "motion to amend conspiracy to 1st

degree murder charges against the State of California..." ECF No. 6. Like the complaint, the motion

to amend is very difficult to read and does not make sense. 

ANALYSIS

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of 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

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. See id. at § 1915A(b). Pro se

complaints must be liberally construed. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two 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. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48

(1988).

The court is unable to understand enough of the allegations in the complaint or the motion to

amend to be able to determine whether Mr. Garrison can state a claim under § 1983. A complaint

must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). "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 and internal quotation marks omitted). Mr. Garrison's

complaint does not provide the required short and plain statement of the claim, and leaves the reader

guessing as to what his problem(s) might be. 

Mr. Garrison's motion to amend does not solve the problem because the motion to amend does

not provide a coherent statement of his claim(s). The motion to amend is large on generalities about

problems experienced by people in custody and in the criminal justice system in California but short

on specifics about this particular plaintiff's problems. The motion to amend does not identify any

legal claim against any particular defendant. 

Case 3:15-cv-00977-LB Document 8 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

C 15-977 LB

ORDER 3

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

The court will grant leave to amend so that Mr. Garrison may file an amended complaint in

which he describes specifically what each defendant did or failed to do that caused a violation of Mr.

Garrison's constitutional rights. In his amended complaint, Mr. Garrison must be careful to allege

facts showing the basis for liability for each defendant for each of his legal claims. He should not

refer to them as a group (e.g., "the defendants"); rather, he should identify each involved defendant

by name and link each of them to his claim by explaining what each defendant did or failed to do

that caused a violation of his rights. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Much of Mr. Garrison's handwriting is extremely difficult to read, and appears to have been

written hurriedly. In all future filings, he must attempt to write more clearly. If the court cannot

understand what a plaintiff is requesting because the writing is illegible or is nonsensical, there is no

possibility that the plaintiff will obtain the relief he seeks. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to amend is DENIED (ECF No. 6) and the complaint is

DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. The amended complaint must be filed no later than

May 1, 2015, and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the words

AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Plaintiff is cautioned that his amended complaint will

supersede existing pleadings and must be a complete statement of his claims, except that he does not

need to plead again any claim the court has dismissed without leave to amend. See Lacey v.

Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). Failure to file the amended

complaint by the deadline will result in the dismissal of the action for failure to state a claim against

a named defendant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2, 2015 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00977-LB Document 8 Filed 04/02/15 Page 3 of 3