Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01914/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01914-0/pdf.json

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

---

tr 1LBD

1

W OCT *4 AMfh'4i|

2

SLEW*- U.SRT

JftfTjiSiH DVMiJSilKif SaHiTOlRflA"

3

i' JO) DsffiM 4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 ROGELIO MAY RUIZ, Case No.: 3:17-cv-01914-BEN-NLS

CDCRNo. F-59761 12 ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT Plaintiff,

13

v. 14

R. OLIVEIRA; B. SELF; M. VOONG;

CDCR OFFICERS, 15

16 Defendant.

17

Rogelio May Ruiz (“Plaintiff’), currently incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison,

and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint (“Compl.”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiffs Complaint contains factual allegations which are

written entirely in Spanish. Plaintiff did not prepay the civil filing fee required by 28

U.S.C. § 1914(a) when he filed his Complaint; instead, he has filed a Motion to Proceed

In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (Doc. No. 2.)

I. Initial Screening per 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l)

The Court may conduct a sua sponte review ofPlaintiffs Complaint because he is

“incarcerated or detained in any facility [and] is accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

l

28 3:17-cv-01914-BEN-NLS

Case 3:17-cv-01914-DMS-AHG Document 3 Filed 10/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or conditions ofparole, probation,

pretrial release, or diversionary program.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). Section 1915A,

enacted as part ofthe Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), requires sua sponte

dismissal ofprisoner complaints, or any portions thereof, which are frivolous, malicious,

or fail to state a claim upon which reliefmay be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); Resnick

v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446-47 (9th Cir. 2000).

“Section 1983 creates a private right of action against individuals who, acting

under color ofstate law, violate federal constitutional or statutory rights.” Devereaux v.

Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th Cir. 2001). Section 1983 “is not itself a source of

substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere

conferred.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989) (internal quotation marks

and citations omitted). “To establish § 1983 liability, a plaintiffmust show both (1)

deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws ofthe United States, and (2)

that the deprivation was committed by a person acting under color ofstate law.” Tsao v.

Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 1128, 1138 (9th Cir. 2012).

A. Rule 8

In this matter, the Court finds that Plaintiffs Complaint fails to comply with Rule

8 ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure, which provides that in order to state a claim for

reliefin a pleading it must contain “a short and plain statement ofthe grounds for the

court’sjurisdiction” and “a short and plain statement ofthe claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1) & (2). “The pleading standard Rule 8

announces does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it demands more than an

unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

Here, Plaintiffs Complaint is written entirely in Spanish. Local Rule 5. l.a.

provides, in part, that “[e]ach document filed, including exhibits where practicable, must

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

2

28 3:17-cv-01914-BEN-NLS

Case 3:17-cv-01914-DMS-AHG Document 3 Filed 10/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
be in English.” CivLR 5. l.a. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiffs Complaint falls short

of complying with Rule 8 and the Court’s local rules, and for those reasons alone,

requires dismissal. Moreover, due to the fact that the Complaint is written entirely in

Spanish, the Court is unable to conduct the required sua sponte screening pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915A. Therefore, the Court will allow Plaintiffto file an amended pleading,

but reminds Plaintiffthat it must be written in English. CivLR 5.1 .a.

Conclusion and Orders

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs Complaint is DISMISSSED without

prejudice for failing to comply with Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 8(a)(1) and Civil

Local Rule 5.1 .a. Plaintiffis granted leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)

within forty-five (45) days ofthe date ofthis Order that cures the deficiencies identified

in this Order. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint must be complete in itselfwithout

reference to his original pleading. Defendants not named and any claims not re-alleged

in the Amended Complaint will be considered waived. See CivLR 15.1; HalRoach

Studios, Inc. v. RichardFeiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[A]n

amended pleading supersedes the original.”); Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928

(9th Cir. 2012) (noting that claims dismissed with leave to amend which are not realleged in an amended pleading may be “considered waived ifnot repled.”).

Additionally, Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed IFP is DENIED as moot and without

prejudice to re-file with his amended pleading.

The Clerk ofCourt is directed to mail Plaintiff, together with this Order, a blank

copy ofthe Court’s form “Complaint under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983” for

use in amending his pleading.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: Qctobefr^-2017

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 III.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

HONTROGER T. BENITEZ

United States District Judge 26

27

3

28 3:17-cv-01914-BEN-NLS

Case 3:17-cv-01914-DMS-AHG Document 3 Filed 10/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3