Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00137/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00137-0/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

No. C 10-0137 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

*E-Filed 6/28/10*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

KEVIN-PAUL WOODRUFF,

Plaintiff,

v.

LINDA ALTAFI, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

No. C 10-0137 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

This is a civil rights action filed by a pro se state prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. The Court now reviews the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

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.

Case 3:10-cv-00137-RS Document 11 Filed 06/28/10 Page 1 of 3
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

No. C 10-0137 RS (PR)

2 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

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

A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim

to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal

conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be

drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 (9th

Cir. 1994). 

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. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff seeks to file criminal charges against various federal actors, including several

federal judges, for acts allegedly taken in 1993. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with

prejudice for the following two reasons. First, plaintiff does not have the power to file

criminal charges. The federal court does not determine whether criminal charges should be

pressed against individuals; that is a matter for the local or federal prosecutor. Plaintiff

should contact the local or federal prosecutors if he wants to file a criminal complaint against

defendants. Second, the alleged events occurred in 1993, well past the two-year statute of

limitations filing period. See Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 954 (9th Cir. 2004). 

//

//

//

Case 3:10-cv-00137-RS Document 11 Filed 06/28/10 Page 2 of 3
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

No. C 10-0137 RS (PR)

3 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

CONCLUSION

The complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff’s motion to serve the

complaint and serve summons (Docket No. 9) is DENIED. 

The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of defendants, terminate the pending motions

and close the file.

This order terminates Docket No. 9. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 28, 2010 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00137-RS Document 11 Filed 06/28/10 Page 3 of 3