Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03009/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03009-0/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

KEITH DESMOND TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JUDGE MICHAEL SMITH, et al., 

Defendants. ________________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 09-3009 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL

AND DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND

On July 6, 2009, plaintiff, a California prisoner incarcerated at San Quentin State

Prison and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. By separate order filed concurrently herewith, plaintiff has been granted leave to

proceed in forma pauperis. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in 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 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.

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v.

Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Case 3:09-cv-03009-MMC Document 6 Filed 01/13/10 Page 1 of 4
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

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).

B. Plaintiff’s Claims

In his complaint, plaintiff sets forth the following four claims: (1) Michael Smith, the

judge who presided over plaintiff’s death penalty trial in the San Bernardino County Superior

Court, allowed perjured testimony to be presented at the trial; (2) an “unknown Navy

Officer” in Lemoore, California, unlawfully took plaintiff’s “medical discharge and

property”; (3) Gregory P. Novac, an attorney in Phoenix, Arizona, did not give plaintiff legal

advice that plaintiff requested; and (4) an “unknown prison guard” at San Quentin State

Prison assaulted plaintiff while plaintiff was in restraints. (Compl. at 3-5.) Plaintiff seeks

millions of dollars in damages from each defendant. (Id. at 6.) 

Plaintiff’s first three claims will be dismissed from the instant action because they are

not properly brought in the Northern District of California. Venue may be raised by the court

sua sponte where the defendant has not filed a responsive pleading and the time for doing so

has not run. See Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). When jurisdiction

is not founded solely on diversity, venue is proper in (1) the district in which any defendant

resides, if all of the defendants reside in the same state; (2) the district in which a substantial

part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the

property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) a judicial district in which any

defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). When venue is improper, the district court has the discretion to

either dismiss the case or transfer it “in the interest of justice.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 

Plaintiff’s claim against Judge Michael Smith arises out of acts allegedly committed in

San Bernardino County; consequently, venue is proper in the Central District of California. 

28 U.S.C. § 84(c). Plaintiff’s claim against an unknown officer in Lemoore, California,

arises out of acts allegedly committed in Kings County; consequently venue is proper in the

Case 3:09-cv-03009-MMC Document 6 Filed 01/13/10 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Eastern District of California. 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). Plaintiff’s claim against attorney Gregory

P. Novac arises out of acts allegedly committed in Phoenix, Arizona; consequently, venue is

proper in the District of Arizona. 28 U.S.C. § 82. Accordingly, the above-three claims will

be dismissed, without prejudice to plaintiff’s refiling them in separate complaints filed in the

proper district court. 

Plaintiff’s fourth claim also is subject to dismissal as plaintiff has failed to provide

sufficient information for the Court to determine whether a cognizable claim for relief is

stated. In particular, plaintiff has provided neither the name of the alleged prison guard

allegedly responsible for plaintiff’s injuries, nor the date on which the injuries occurred or

the surrounding circumstances. Without such information, plaintiff’s claim cannot proceed

and the complaint is subject to dismissal. Plaintiff may, however, file an amended complaint

if he can in good faith allege facts, subject to proof, that cure the pleading deficiencies noted

above. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s claims against Michael Smith, an unknown officer in Lemoore,

California, and Gregory P. Novac are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to plaintiff’s

raising such claims in new complaints filed in the proper district court. 

2. Plaintiff’s claim against an unknown prison guard at San Quentin State Prison is

hereby DISMISSED with leave to amend. Within thirty (30) days of the date this Order is

filed, plaintiff may file an AMENDED COMPLAINT, using the court’s form civil rights

complaint, a copy of which is provided herewith, in order to cure the deficiencies noted

above. Plaintiff shall complete the form, and include in the caption both the case number of

this action, No. C 09-3009 MMC (PR), and the phrase “AMENDED COMPLAINT.” 

An amended complaint supersedes the initial complaint and may not incorporate by

reference any parts of the original complaint. London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811,

814 (9th Cir. 1981). Defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer

defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.1992). These rules govern

Case 3:09-cv-03009-MMC Document 6 Filed 01/13/10 Page 3 of 4
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

4

actions filed by pro se litigants as well as litigants represented by counsel. See King v.

Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).

3. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court

informed of any change of address and must comply with the court’s orders in a timely

fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action, pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 41(b), for failure to prosecute.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 13, 2010 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-03009-MMC Document 6 Filed 01/13/10 Page 4 of 4