Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03950/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03950-1/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

AMANDA STOKES,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

Sergeant COLOBALE; Sergeant

JOHNSON; and SAN MATEO COUNTY

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-3950 PJH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a state prisoner. The complaint was

dismissed with leave to amend in the initial review order because plaintiff provided only a

conclusory allegation that she had been sexually assaulted and beaten, and because it was

unclear who the defendants were intended to be. The only defendant named in the

caption was Sergeant Johnson, but in the section of the form which asked for the names

and addresses of the defendants, she named “Sgt John” and “Sgt Colobale.” Not only did

this differ from the caption, but neither was mentioned in the statement of the claim.

Plaintiff amended, but the amendment still had only one defendant in the caption,

this time Sergeant Colobale rather than Johnson, and again both Johnson and Colobale

were named in the list of defendants. Her claim for relief was: “I had no rights to freedom

of speech. When trying to voice my opinion, she would have 6 to 8 men come in the room

and take my clothes of[f] me, put me in a chair and beat me. For no reason. I was told

she’s very intimidated by me.” Because there were two defendants, Colobale and

Johnson, it was not possible to tell who she contended had caused her to be tied to a chair

and beaten for expressing her opinion, and she had again failed to allege any facts about

whichever defendant did not do that. The complaint therefore was once again dismissed

Case 4:05-cv-03950-PJH Document 17 Filed 04/29/08 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

with leave to amend. 

Plaintiff has amended. She now names both sergeants plus the San Mateo County

Sheriff’s Department. Her statement of claim, however, contains no allegation at all

regarding any of the defendants; it is phrased in the passive – “I was beat” – without saying

who did what. She thus has not stated a claim against either individual defendant. And

she does not contend that what happened to her was pursuant to a policy or custom of the

Sheriff’s Department, so she has not stated a claim against the department. See Shaw v.

Cal. Dep't of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 788 F.2d 600, 610-11 (9th Cir. 1986).

Because this is the third version of the complaint and plaintiff still has not stated a

claim against anyone, the case will be dismissed without further leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. The clerk

shall close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 29, 2008. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.05\STOKES950.DSM.wpd 

Case 4:05-cv-03950-PJH Document 17 Filed 04/29/08 Page 2 of 2