Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06577/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06577-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KASEY F HOFFMANN,

Plaintiff,

v.

E OLIVEROS,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-06577-JD 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 14

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

This case was removed from state court by defendant who has paid the filing fee. The Court has 

reviewed the original and amended complaints.

DISCUSSION

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. 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. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se 

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th 

Cir. 1990).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although a complaint “does not need detailed 

factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to 

relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 

Case 3:18-cv-06577-JD Document 15 Filed 12/04/18 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above 

the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations 

omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face.” Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face” 

standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they 

must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court 

should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement 

to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by 

the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was 

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

LEGAL CLAIMS

Plaintiff alleges that he was denied access to state court. Prisoners have a constitutional 

right of access to the courts. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996); Bounds v. Smith, 430 

U.S. 817, 821 (1977). To establish a claim for any violation of the right of access to the courts, 

the prisoner must prove that there was an inadequacy in the prison’s legal access program that 

caused him an actual injury. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 350-55. To prove an actual injury, the 

prisoner must show that the inadequacy in the prison’s program hindered his efforts to pursue a 

non-frivolous claim concerning his conviction or conditions of confinement. See id. at 354-55.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant on various occasions delayed his mail to state court. 

Defendant allegedly delayed mail until proper postage was provided and stated that certain legal 

mail was not legal mail. It appears that the state court case involved plaintiff’s children and the 

Lassen County Department of Child Social Services. The complaint is dismissed with leave to 

amend to provide more information. To present a constitutional claim plaintiff must show an

actual injury due to defendant’s action and that plaintiff was pursuing a claim concerning his 

conviction or conditions of confinement.

Case 3:18-cv-06577-JD Document 15 Filed 12/04/18 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Northern District of California

CONCLUSION

1. The motion to screen the complaint (Docket Nos. 2, 14) is GRANTED. The 

amended complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. The second amended complaint must 

be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this order is filed and must include the caption 

and civil case number used in this order and the words SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT on 

the first page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, 

plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 

1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the original complaint by 

reference. Failure to amend within the designated time will result in the dismissal of this action.

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

Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice 

of 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 for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 4, 2018

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-06577-JD Document 15 Filed 12/04/18 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KASEY F HOFFMANN,

Plaintiff,

v.

E OLIVEROS,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-06577-JD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on December 4, 2018, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Kasey F Hoffmann ID: K36451

Correctional Training Facility

P.O. Box 705

Soledad, CA 93960-0705 

Dated: December 4, 2018

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO

Case 3:18-cv-06577-JD Document 15 Filed 12/04/18 Page 4 of 4