Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-02194/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-02194-0/pdf.json

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

JAMES FLEETWOOD HUMDY, JR.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PELICAN BAY STATE PRISON;

DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS; and

Warden HOREL, 

Defendants. /

No. C 08-2194 PJH (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE

TO AMEND

Plaintiff, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, has filed a pro se civil rights

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis.

DISCUSSION

A. 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

Case 4:08-cv-02194-PJH Document 4 Filed 05/14/08 Page 1 of 3
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

grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations

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, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65

(2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief

that is plausible on its face." Id. at 1986-87. 

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). 

B. Claims and Defendants 

In the caption plaintiff has named “Pelican Bay State Prison” as a defendant. The

prison is an agency of the state and thus cannot be sued in federal court. See Allison v.

California Adult Authority, 419 F.2d 822, 823 (9th Cir. 1969) (California Adult Authority and

San Quentin Prison not persons within meaning of Civil Rights Act). Because no

amendment could render the prison as an entity subject to suit in federal court, the claims

against the prison will be dismissed without leave to amend. 

The other two defendants are the director of corrections and Robert Horel, warden at

the prison. Plaintiff contends that he is a convert to Judaism and that prison authorities will

not provide him with kosher foods for Jewish holidays. He says that he was offered the

options of requesting transfer to a prison where kosher food is available or of waiting until

the prison hires a rabbi to “bless the kosher foods,” but neither defendant has

“accommodated me those options.” 

Plaintiff has failed to allege any specific facts regarding the director of corrections’

involvement in the denial of kosher foods. He thus has failed to state a claim for relief

against the director that is plausible on its face. The claims against the director will be

Case 4:08-cv-02194-PJH Document 4 Filed 05/14/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

dismissed with leave to amend. 

Plaintiff alleges that warden Horel offered him the options of asking for a transfer or

waiting for the prison to hire a rabbi. His contention that the options have not been

“accommodated” or “delivered” is insufficient to state a claim against Horel, however,

because he has not alleged that he requested a transfer; because the second option,

waiting, by its nature is open-ended; and because he has not made any factual allegations

regarding Horel’s personal involvement in the purported nondelivery of the options. The

claim against Horel will be dismissed with leave to amend to provide facts regarding

plaintiff’s attempts to exercise the options offered him and Horel’s involvement, if any, in

that process. 

CONCLUSION

1. The claim against Pelican Bay State Prison is DISMISSED with prejudice.

2. For the foregoing reasons, the case is DISMISSED with leave to amend, as

indicated above, within 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. Because an amended complaint completely

replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to

present. 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 these claims.

3. 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 headed

“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 Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 14, 2008. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.08\HUMDY2194.DWL.wpd

Case 4:08-cv-02194-PJH Document 4 Filed 05/14/08 Page 3 of 3