Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02291/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02291-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAWRENCE GEORGE HASH,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SUSAN HINKE, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-2291 MMC

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Lawrence Hash, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and against private investigators he retained to

gather evidence on his behalf. He alleges that such defendants failed to adequately perform

after he paid them $1000, and that they will not return his money. He has applied for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis.

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

to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), (e)(2). In its review, the court must

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 id. 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).

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

2

§ 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, 559 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 949 (1975). Simply put: there is no

constitutional right to be free from the infliction of deprivations by private individuals. See

Van Ort v. Estate of Stanewich, 92 F.3d 831, 835 (9th Cir. 1996). As the defendants named in

the complaint are private individuals, plaintiff’s claims against them do not state a cognizable

claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Accordingly, the complaint is hereby DISMISSED.

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 14, 2005

 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge