Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01869/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01869-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD MELNYK, ) Case No. 06-cv-1869 LJO TAG

)

Plaintiff, ) ORDER DENYING APPLICATION 

) TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

v. ) WITHOUT PREJUDICE

) (Doc. 12)

CAL. NORTH KERN STATE PRISON, ) 

et al., ) ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

) WITH THIRTY (30) DAYS

Defendants. ) LEAVE TO AMEND

 )

Plaintiff Richard Melnyk (“Plaintiff”), seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his

pro se civil rights complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 12). The matter has been

referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-303.

The complaint alleges that defendants California North Kern State Prison (“NKSP”), NKSP’s

Warden and Accounting Department, and the Director of Corrections (collectively “the defendants”),

violated his civil and constitutional rights when they refused to return the money in his prison trust

account upon his transfer to a pretrial detention facility pending the reversal of his conviction and

sentence. Plaintiff contends that the defendants deprived him of his First, Fourth, and Fourteenth

Amendment rights and violated sections 2600, 2611, and 211 of the California Penal Code. (Doc. 1).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and (e)(2)(B), this Court must “screen” a prisoner’s complaint

to determine whether the case should be dismissed because it (1) “is frivolous or malicious,” or (2) “fails

to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or (3) “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who

is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b), (e)(2)(B)(i),(ii), and (iii). 

To state a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the complaint must set forth facts from which

it can be inferred that the plaintiff was deprived of rightssecured by the Constitution or federal statutes.

Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986). Allegations that a defendant violated

Case 1:06-cv-01869-LJO-LJO Document 15 Filed 03/30/07 Page 1 of 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

2

state laws or regulations do not provide a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Swearney v. Ada

County, Idaho, 119 F.3d 1385, 1391 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Other than the alleged violations of the state penal code, Plaintiff does not explain in what way

the defendants’ withholding of the money in his trust fund account pending the reversal of his conviction

violated his rights under the Constitution or federal statutes. (Doc. 1). Accordingly, theCourtfinds that,

because Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section

§ 1983, the “Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis By a Prisoner” (Doc. 12) must be denied without

prejudice. Plaintiff is provided an opportunity to file an amended complaint, in which he can explain

how the actions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. Pursuant to

Local Rule 15-220, Plaintiff is advised that the amended complaint must be complete in itself without

reference to his previous pleadings. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. 12), is DENIED without

 prejudice;

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983;

3. The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form and an

 application form for a non-prisoner to proceed in forma pauperis; and

4. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall file an amended

 complaint.

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation to dismiss this

action and/or the defendants named therein for failure to obey this Court’s order. Local

Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-01869-LJO-LJO Document 15 Filed 03/30/07 Page 2 of 2