Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00643/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00643-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MOODY WOODROW TANKSLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00643-DLB PC

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON

WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED

UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(Doc. 14)

DISMISSAL COUNTS AS STRIKE

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(G)

Order

I. Background

Plaintiff Moody Woodrow Tanksley (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and

in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 10, 2009, Plaintiff filed the complaint

which initiated this action. (Doc. 1.) On August 21, 2009, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s

complaint with leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days. (Doc. 13.) On September 23,

2009, Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint.

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are

legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or

that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been

1

Case 1:09-cv-00643-DLB Document 16 Filed 04/06/10 Page 1 of 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

paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or

appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct.

at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true,

legal conclusions are not. Id. at 1949.

II. Summary of Allegations

Plaintiff is currently housed at Atascadero State Hospital. Plaintiff’s amended complaint,

much like his original complaint, is difficult to understand and his allegations difficult to

decipher. Plaintiff names the Honorable Richard J. Oberholzer and District Attorney Kenneth

Green as defendants. Plaintiff does not explain why he is suing Judge Oberholzer or Kenneth

Green. Plaintiff is alleging that defendants violated the Health Insurance Portability and

Accountability Act by their actions, as well as “penality code 1385.” Plaintiff requests that the

Court obtain court documents from the California Fifth District Court of Appeal. Plaintiff seeks

money damages.

First, as stated in the Court’s previous order, the Health Insurance Portability and

Accountability Act itself provides no private right of action. Webb v. Smart Document Solutions

L.L.C, 499 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff’s claim fails as a matter of law

Second, state court judges and prosecutors are immune from liability under 42 U.S.C. §

1983. See Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Medicine, 363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Absolute

immunity is generally accorded to judges and prosecutors functioning in their official

capacities”); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir.1986) (holding that judges and

prosecutors are immune from liability for damages under section 1983 ). Based on his

2

Case 1:09-cv-00643-DLB Document 16 Filed 04/06/10 Page 2 of 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

allegations, Plaintiff may not proceed in this action against either defendant Oberholzer or

defendant Green. 

Third, Plaintiff cites to a penal code 1385. The corresponding section in the California

Penal Code pertains to criminal procedure for dismissing actions. Cal. Penal Code § 1385. This

is not a cause of action.

Plaintiff was provided with the opportunity to file an amended complaint curing the

deficiencies in his original complaint. Plaintiff has failed to do so, and fails to state any

cognizable federal claims. Accordingly, further leave to amend will not be granted. Lopez v.

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

III. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff fails to state any cognizable claims in his amended complaint. Plaintiff was

provided leave to amend to cure the deficiencies identified in his original complaint, but failed to

do so. Plaintiff will not be granted further leave to amend.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice

for failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The

dismissal counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 6, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:09-cv-00643-DLB Document 16 Filed 04/06/10 Page 3 of 3