Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04406/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04406-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gary Eric Bolton
Plaintiff
Chevron
Defendant
Andre Tony Miller
Defendant

Document Text:

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 1

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pin cites are to the ECF-generated page

numbers at the tops of the documents.

15-cv-4406 LB

ORDER

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

San Francisco Division

GARY ERIC BOLTON, SR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHEVRON; ANDRE TONY MILLER,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. 15-cv-4406 LB

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

[Re: ECF No. 8]

Gary E. Bolton, Sr., a pretrial detainee currently housed at Napa State Hospital, filed this pro se

civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mr. Bolton has consented to proceed before a magistrate

judge. (ECF No. 1 at 4.)1

 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court reviewed his complaint and

determined that it was deficient in that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted, included an insufficient factual description of his claim, and appeared to be time-barred. 

(ECF No. 5. ) The court dismissed the complaint, and granted Mr. Bolton leave to file an amended

complaint to cure the several deficiencies. (Id.) Mr. Bolton then filed an amended complaint, which

is now before the court for review.

Case 3:15-cv-04406-LB Document 9 Filed 01/15/16 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

15-cv-4406 LB

ORDER 2

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

Mr. Bolton's amended complaint fails to cure the deficiencies identified in the order of dismissal

with leave to amend. The statement of claim in the amended complaint is incomprehensible. (ECF

No. 8 at 3.) The amended complaint does not state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because it does

not allege facts suggesting that either named defendant was a state actor, and does not allege that

either of them violated any of Mr. Bolton's rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States. 

See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (to state a claim under § 1983, plaintiff must allege state

action and that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated). 

Further leave to amend will not be granted because it would be futile. The order of dismissal with

leave to amend identified the deficiencies in the original complaint and Mr. Bolton was unable to

cure those deficiencies in his amended complaint. This action is DISMISSED for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted. The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 15, 2015 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-04406-LB Document 9 Filed 01/15/16 Page 2 of 2