Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05592/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05592-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEWIS B. OSCAR,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF CRESCENT CITY; et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-5592 MHP (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

INTRODUCTION

Lewis B. Oscar, an inmate at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville, filed this

pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint is currently before the court

for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

DISCUSSION

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of 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). 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

28 U.S.C. §1915A(b)(1),(2). A claim that is incomprehensible may be dismissed as frivolous

as it is without an arguable basis in law. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 641 (9th Cir.

1989).

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

a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins,

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

The complaint in this action is deficient because plaintiff failed to include an

Case 3:06-cv-05592-MHP Document 5 Filed 12/21/06 Page 1 of 2
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

attachment. In the portion of the form complaint for the statement of the claim, plaintiff

wrote "please see attached document with 'statement of claim.'" Complaint, p. 3. However,

he failed to attach that document. The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted and links no defendant to any constitutional violation plaintiff may have suffered. 

Leave to amend will be permitted so that plaintiff can file an amended complaint that

includes a statement of his claim. Plaintiff is cautioned that his amended complaint must

describe what each defendant did to him that allegedly caused a deprivation of his

constitutional rights, must identify each constitutional right that was allegedly deprived, and

should state when that deprivation occurred. 

CONCLUSION

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

filed no later than thirty days from the date of this order. The amended complaint must

include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the words AMENDED

COMPLAINT on the first page. Plaintiff is cautioned that his amended complaint must be a

complete statement of his claims and will supersede existing pleadings. See London v.

Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981) ("a plaintiff waives all causes of

action alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in the amended complaint.") 

Failure to file the amended complaint by the deadline will result in the dismissal of this

action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2006 

 Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05592-MHP Document 5 Filed 12/21/06 Page 2 of 2