Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02221/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02221-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph Chudy
Defendant
Alejandro Gonzalez
Plaintiff

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

No. C 10-2221 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

*E-Filed 8/13/10*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

ALEJANDRO GONZALEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSEPH CHUDY, 

Defendant.

 /

No. C 10-2221 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

This is a federal civil rights action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983 by a pro se state

prisoner. The Court now reviews the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and

dismiss any claims that 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. See id.

Case 3:10-cv-02221-RS Document 7 Filed 08/13/10 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

No. C 10-2221 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

2

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica

Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). A “complaint must contain sufficient

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550

U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for

the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is

not required to accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those

conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness

Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 (9th Cir. 1994). 

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 violation was committed by a person acting under the color

of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff alleges that he requested and was denied a reasonable accommodation for his

various ailments. Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain sufficient factual matter to state a

claim to relief that is plausible on its face. In sum, plaintiff’s allegations lack the requisite

specificity to state a claim. Plaintiff must allege specific facts against specific defendants

detailing his claims that his constitutional rights were violated by a person or persons acting

under color of state law. Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. 

Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within 30 days from the date this order is filed. The

first amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order

(10-2221 RS (PR)) and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. 

Because an amended complaint completely replaces the previous complaints, plaintiff must

include in his first amended complaint all the claims he wishes to present and all of the

defendants he wishes to sue. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Case 3:10-cv-02221-RS Document 7 Filed 08/13/10 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

No. C 10-2221 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

3

Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the prior complaint by reference. Failure to file

an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in dismissal of this action

without further notice to plaintiff.

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 Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion or ask

for an extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in the dismissal of this action

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 13, 2010 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-02221-RS Document 7 Filed 08/13/10 Page 3 of 3