Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04908/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04908-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHANE VERLIN GHOST,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALAN STILLMEN, et al.,

Defendants. __________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 15-4908 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, an inmate that the Santa Rita County Jail, has filed this pro se civil rights

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Complaint was reviewed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A, and dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. Plaintiff was

given leave to file an amended complaint, which he has done in a timely fashion. The

Court now reviews the First Amended Complaint, and finds that it has not cured the

deficiencies in the original Complaint and continues to fail to state cognizable grounds

for relief. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED. 

DISCUSSION

I. 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). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the

complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or

Case 4:15-cv-04908-JSW Document 13 Filed 02/26/16 Page 1 of 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 2

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a

defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 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, 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. Pro se

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696,

699 (9th Cir. 1990).

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 alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state

law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

II. Discussion

In his original complaint, Plaintiff claimed that he did not receive adequate

medical care, and sought a “brain scan or M.R.I.,” an “ultra sound of buttocks and anus,”

and monetary damages.” After reviewing the Complaint, the Court found as follows: 

it is impossible to discern from the allegations in his complaint when and

where the inadequate care took place, what medical care he received and

Case 4:15-cv-04908-JSW Document 13 Filed 02/26/16 Page 2 of 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 3

from whom, and what his medical needs are. Plaintiff will be given leave

to file an amended complaint in which he clarifies these matters. If these

deficiencies are not cured in the amended complaint, this case will be

dismissed. 

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint alleges that he was injured twice in 2012,

that he has worn a helmet for a head injury, and that he has received medical care at a

hospital for his eyes and his “pelvis area.” He also alleges that he is “fighting” charges

of failing to register as a sex offender, and that there are violations of the “Federal Indian

Civil Rights Act.” The amended complaint suffers from the same problems as the

original complaint. He does not state where the alleged inadequate medical care took

place, who denied or failed to provide such care, or what his medical condition or needs

are. As the amended complaint fails to cure the deficiencies in the original complaint,

this case will be dismissed. Plaintiff’s failure to cure these deficiencies also indicates

that granting further leave to amend the complaint would be futile. 

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, this case is DISMISSED. The Clerk shall enter

judgment and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 26, 2016 

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-04908-JSW Document 13 Filed 02/26/16 Page 3 of 3