Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_19-cv-06318/USCOURTS-cand-1_19-cv-06318-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

RAUL CERVANTES,

Plaintiff,

v.

BURCIAGA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-06318-RMI

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND

Re: Dkt. No. 2

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

court granted his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. 15). 

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.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the statement 

need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it 

rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). Although, in order to state 

Case 1:19-cv-06318-RMI Document 16 Filed 11/13/19 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

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 to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has 

recently 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 two essential elements: (1) 

that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that 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 has submitted several filings with a wide variety of claims. It is not clear what

claims Plaintiff wishes to make, and thus, the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend to 

provide more information and a clearer recitation of the allegations. Plaintiff’s most recent filing 

(dkt. 12) appears to concern the percentage of funds being taken out of Plaintiff’s prison trust 

account for court filings. Plaintiff names as defendants a correctional officer and a deputy attorney 

general who were involved in a prior lawsuit.

Plaintiff is informed that “the Supreme Court has determined that certain government 

officials require absolute immunity from liability in order to enable them to function 

independently and effectively, without fear of intimidation or harassment. Accordingly, the Court 

has granted absolute immunity to . . . judges, prosecutors, . . . and officials performing 

quasijudicial functions.” Fry v. Melaragno, 939 F.2d 832, 835-36 (9th Cir. 1991) (internal 

quotation marks, citations, and footnote omitted). When sued in official and individual capacities, 

Case 1:19-cv-06318-RMI Document 16 Filed 11/13/19 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

the Ninth Circuit has held that an attorney general or deputy attorney general has absolute 

immunity, except they “are not immune from any actions that are wholly unrelated to or outside of 

their official duties.” Bly–Magee v. California, 236 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Fry, 

939 F.2d at 837 (government lawyers are absolutely immune for actions “intimately” or “closely” 

associated with judicial process). “Whether the government attorney is representing the plaintiff or 

the defendant, or is conducting a civil trial, criminal prosecution or agency hearing, absolute 

immunity is necessary to assure that . . . advocates . . . can perform their respective functions 

without harassment or intimidation.” Id. (citation omitted).

The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend for Plaintiff to present his allegations in 

one filing. He must identify specific defendants and describe how they violated his constitutional 

rights. If Plaintiff seeks relief against the deputy attorney general, he must demonstrate why 

immunity does not apply and how the claim regarding his prison trust account presents a federal 

claim. Plaintiff should also describe where the alleged incidents occurred. If these events occurred 

while Plaintiff has been incarcerated in California State Prison Los Angeles, then this action will 

be transferred.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion for an extension (dkt. 2) is DENIED. The complaint is DISMISSED

with leave to amend in accordance with the standards set forth above. The 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 AMENDED COMPLAINT on the 

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

must include all the claims he wishes to present in it. 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 case.

Additionally, 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 titled “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 

Case 1:19-cv-06318-RMI Document 16 Filed 11/13/19 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

Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13, 2019

ROBERT M. ILLMAN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:19-cv-06318-RMI Document 16 Filed 11/13/19 Page 4 of 4