Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04018/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04018-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cheng I. Cheng
Plaintiff
Levas
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHENG I. CHENG,

Plaintiff, 

 v.

Deputies LEVAS #694; DEMARTIN

#D139; KNAPTON; A. AVILA #125;

C. PARKER; F. CARRASCON; J.

HARP; A. RINNIGER; M.

HINSHAW #D781; M. HUNTOON;

R. SALAZAR; R. GRASTY; G.

JOHNSON #566; MALETI;

ROBERTS #34; ROBERTS #34;

PALABY #98; ABRAMS #12;

OSBORN #142; Forensic Mental

Health MS. MOLLY and MS.

ROSEMARY; Nurse MR. GIDEON;

Nurse MR. BRETT; Head Nurse MR.

MIKE; Nurse MS. CAOLINE; Nurse

MS. ERICA; REBECCA ANDERSON

POTTS, Medical Manager, San Mateo

County Jail; SAN MATEO COUNTY

JAIL; COUNTY OF SAN MATEO,

and DOES I-V,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-4018 WHA (PR) 

DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND

Plaintiff, an inmate of the San Mateo County Jail, has filed a pro se civil rights

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

pauperis. 

///

Case 3:07-cv-04018-WHA Document 3 Filed 01/17/08 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

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 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 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins,

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. LEGAL CLAIMS

Plaintiff contends that defendant Levas abused and beat him, causing great pain and

injury. He also contends that defendant Demartin, who also is a correctional officer, and

defendant Gideon, a nurse, observed some or all of the abuse and did nothing about it. Plaintiff

Case 3:07-cv-04018-WHA Document 3 Filed 01/17/08 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

does not, however, mention the other defendants in his statement of his claim. The complaint

therefore will be dismissed with leave to amend to specify what each defendant did that plaintiff

contends violated his constitutional rights. See Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. at 2200. 

Plaintiff should also note that defendant San Mateo County Jail probably is not a suable entity,

and that his claim against defendant San Mateo County can only be maintained if he alleges that

the violations of his constitutional rights were pursuant to a policy or practice of the county

itself. See Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978).

CONCLUSION

1. The complaint 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.

2. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court

informed of any change of address by filing with the clerk a separate paper headed “Notice of

Change of Address.” Papers intended to be filed in this case should be addressed to the clerk

and not to the undersigned. Petitioner also 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: January 16 , 2008. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.07\CHENG4018.DWLTA.wpd 

Case 3:07-cv-04018-WHA Document 3 Filed 01/17/08 Page 3 of 3