Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00563/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00563-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anka Behavioral/MHM IMC California Forensic
Defendant
Frederick DeLawarence Brown
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

FREDERICK DELAWARENCE BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANKA BEHAVIORAL/MHM IMC 

CALIFORNIA FORENSIC,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-00563-JSC 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Napa State Hospital, filed this pro se civil rights complaint under 

42 U.S.C. ' 1983 against what appears to be an entity named “Anka Behavioral/MHM IMC 

California Forensic.” 1 His application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted in a separate order. 

For the reasons explained below, the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. 

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). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of 

the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id.

 1 Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c). (Dkt. 5.) 

Case 3:15-cv-00563-JSC Document 7 Filed 04/20/15 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

§ 1915A(b). 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, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although 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 1974. Pro se pleadings must be liberally 

construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983, a plaintiff must allege two 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. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 

42, 48 (1988).

LEGAL CLAIMS

Plaintiff alleges that on August 20, 2014, he contacted something called “the ConRep 

oncall hot line” to complain that his “roommate had exposed himself” to Plaintiff. (Compl. at 3.) 

The next day he was summoned to the “ConRep” office to explain what had happened, and when 

he did, he was asked whether he felt like acting violently towards his roommate. (Id.) He 

explained that he had such thoughts but did not intend to act them out. (Id.) Based on this 

statement, “ConRep” found that he had “become symptomatic . . . consistent with past delusional 

processes.” (Id.) He seeks 10 million dollars in damages from “ConRep” for violating his due 

process rights, misdiagnosing him as delusional, and incarcerating him illegally. 

There are several deficiencies in this complaint. To begin with, Plaintiff does not name 

“ConRep” as a Defendant either in the caption or in Section II.B. of the form complaint where 

Case 3:15-cv-00563-JSC Document 7 Filed 04/20/15 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

Defendants are to be listed. Instead, the only Defendant listed in the complaint is something 

called “Anka Behavioral/MHM IMC California Forensic,” but there is no explanation of what that 

is or where it can be located, and there are no allegations as to how it is involved in the claimed 

violation of Plaintiff’s rights. Plaintiff also does not explain what “ConRep” is or where it is 

located. To cure this deficiency, Plaintiff must clearly name the individual(s) and/or entity(ies) he 

is suing, provide their location for service, and list them in both the caption and Section II.B. of 

the form complaint. In addition, in the body of the complaint, he must allege how each of the 

named Defendants was involved in the alleged violated of his rights under federal law. 

The second deficiency is that there is no due process right to a correct medical diagnosis; 

to the extent the incorrect medical diagnosis led to improper medical care, Plaintiff may bring his 

claim under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits deliberate indifference to a state prisoner’s 

serious medical needs. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). To the extent Plaintiff 

seeks to challenge the lawfulness of his incarceration in federal court, he must do so in a petition 

for a writ of habeas corpus (after he has exhausted his state court remedies) filed in a separate 

action. See Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2011). 

CONCLUSION

The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file an amended 

complaint within twenty eight (28) days from the date this order is filed that cures the 

deficiencies noted above. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number 

used in this order (No. C 15-0563 JSC (PR)) and the words “COURT-ORDERED FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely 

replaces the original complaint, see Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992), 

Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the original by reference; he must include in his 

amended complaint all the claims from the original complaint that he still wishes to pursue. 

Failure to file an amended co within the designated time and in accordance with this order will 

result in the dismissal of this case. 

It is 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 

Case 3:15-cv-00563-JSC Document 7 Filed 04/20/15 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

Address.” He also must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion, although he may 

request an extension of time provided it is accompanied by a showing of good cause and it is filed 

on or before the deadline he wants to extend. 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: April 20, 2015

________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00563-JSC Document 7 Filed 04/20/15 Page 4 of 4