Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06981/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06981-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

ANTOINE R. WILLIAMS, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

KHALED ALJUHAIM and LEE

MARKET, 

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-6981 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Docket No. 2)

Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Alameda County Jail, has filed a pro se

civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against two private entities, a grocery

store and its manager, alleging that they assaulted him on May 12, 2006. Plaintiff has

also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 2), which is now DENIED

as moot. No fee is due. 

DISCUSSION

A. 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. 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)(1),(2). Pro se

Case 3:06-cv-06981-JSW Document 3 Filed 11/27/06 Page 1 of 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 2

pleadings must be liberally construed. See 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 essential

elements: (1) that a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the

United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a

person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claim

In this case, Plaintiff has sued a private individual and a private entity, a store.

A private individual generally does not act under color of state law. 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). 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). Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED

without prejudice to Plaintiff bringing the claims in a court which has jurisdiction to

hear them.

CONCLUSION

For the forgoing reasons, Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby DISMISSED for the

reasons set forth above. The Clerk shall close the file and enter judgment in this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 27, 2006 JEFFREY S. WHITE

 United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-06981-JSW Document 3 Filed 11/27/06 Page 2 of 2