Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04197/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04197-2/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINCENT PRICE MCCOWAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CARDONA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-04197-HSG 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a California prisoner incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed this pro se 

civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His amended complaint is now before the Court for 

review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons set forth below, this action is DISMISSED

without prejudice.

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 28 U.S.C. § 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). 

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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not 

necessary; the statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the 

Case 4:15-cv-04197-HSG Document 17 Filed 04/29/16 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

grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations and internal 

quotations omitted). Although in order to state a claim 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 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 for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id.

at 570. 

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. Procedural History

In his initial complaint, Plaintiff named as defendants Judge Seeborg; Richard Wieking, 

the former Clerk of the Court of the Northern District of California; Deputy Clerk Corinne Lew; 

and Officer Cardona. On December 14, 2015, the Court dismissed defendants Seeborg, Wieking, 

and Lew from this action without leave to amend for failure to state a claim and because these 

defendants are immune from Plaintiff’s claims. Docket No. 12 at 3–4. The Court granted Plaintiff 

leave to amend his claims against defendant Cardona. Id. at 4. Plaintiff was instructed that in his 

amended complaint, he must set forth specific facts regarding what Cardona did, or did not do, 

that violated his constitutional rights. Id.

C. Amended Complaint

Plaintiff again names as defendants Judge Richard Seeborg; former Clerk of the Court

Richard Wieking; Deputy Clerk Corinne Lew; and Officer Cardona. He also adds Officer B. 

Avina as a defendant. Docket No. 14 (“Am. Compl.”) at 2.

The amended complaint consists of the following: 

(1) the complaint form with a short statement of claim that discusses the Clerk’s letter, 

filed on September 15, 2015 in the instant action, that was sent to Plaintiff and informed him that 

Case 4:15-cv-04197-HSG Document 17 Filed 04/29/16 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

his in forma pauperis application was incomplete; a copy of the Clerk’s letter; and a copy of the 

consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction form that was filed in this case, Am. Compl. at 3–5; 

(2) a CDCR Form 602 prison grievance submitted by Plaintiff on November 8, 2015 

wherein Plaintiff complains about a urine test administered by Officer Avina on November 5, 

2015, arguing that urine tests should be limited to inmates who are known to be using drugs or 

consuming alcohol; and wherein Plaintiff complains that, on that same day, Officer Ramirez 

prevent Plaintiff from complaining to the lieutenant in charge about the urine test, Am. Compl. at 

6–7; and

(3) a document titled “Petitioner’s motion and compelling discovery evidence AG Judge 

Seeborg. 1) Request, (sic) Settle out of Court,” Am. Compl. at 9–10.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint does not comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). Rule 8 requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). In other words, in the body of his amended

complaint, Plaintiff should state what each defendant did, or did not do, that violated his 

constitutional rights. Plaintiff may not attach exhibits to the amended complaint in lieu of making 

a statement as to why he is entitled to relief. 

Here, in the body of Plaintiff’s amended complaint, Plaintiff does not reference any of the 

named defendants. Rather, he complains about the September 2, 2105 letter, sent to him by Clerk 

Susan Y. Soong and filed in the instant action, that notified him that his in forma pauperis

application was incomplete. Am. Compl. at 3. His amended complaint fails to address the 

deficiencies identified in the Court’s December 14, 2015 Order of Dismissal with Leave to 

Amend.1 Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to file an 

 

1

The exhibits attached to the amended complaint also fail to address the deficiencies identified in 

the Court’s December 14, 2015 Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend. 

The grievance attached to the amended complaint indicates that Plaintiff believes that 

defendant Avaina violated his constitutional rights by conducting a urine test on November 5, 

2015. This incident took place six weeks after this action was filed on September 15, 2015. 

Plaintiff’s allegations regarding defendant Avina are unrelated to the issues in the original 

complaint, and unrelated to his allegations against the other named defendants. 

Petitioner’s motion compelling discovery evidence and requesting an out-of-court 

settlement alleges that Judge Seeborg’s orders in McCowan v. Hendrick, C No. 13-00407 RS 

violated Plaintiff’s civil rights. As the Court explained in its prior order, a federal judge is 

Case 4:15-cv-04197-HSG Document 17 Filed 04/29/16 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

appropriate response to the Court’s December 14, 2015, Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend. 

Because this dismissal is without prejudice, Plaintiff may move to reopen the action. Any 

such motion must contain a second amended complaint containing clear, detailed allegations 

concerning what defendant Cardona did, or did not do, that violated Plaintiff’s constitutional 

rights. The amended complaint may not raise unrelated claims. Plaintiff is reminded that 

defendants Seeborg, Wieking, and Lew have been dismissed from this action without leave to 

amend, and may not be included in any amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

 

absolutely immune from civil liability for acts performed in his judicial capacity. See Moore v. 

Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1243 (9th Cir. 1996) superseded by statute on other grounds as discussed 

in Meinhold v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P., 2007 WL 1456141, at *5 (E.D. Cal. May 16, 2007); Mullis 

v. U.S. Bankruptcy Ct., 828 F.2d 1385, 1394 (9th Cir. 1987) (applying judicial immunity to actions 

under Bivens). This judicial immunity includes immunity from damages, and from actions for 

declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s allegations regarding 

Judge Seeborg fail to state a claim. 

4/29/2016

Case 4:15-cv-04197-HSG Document 17 Filed 04/29/16 Page 4 of 4