Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01462/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01462-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
George Hamilton
Plaintiff
Unknown
Defendant

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE HAMILTON, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

UNKNOWN, 

 Defendant.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01462-MJS (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT 

ORDERS AND FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE 

ORDER (1) TO SUBMIT APPLICATION 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

OR PAY FILING FEE, and (2) TO FILE 

PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT 

ON PROPER FORM 

(ECF Nos. 2, 3, 12)

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

This action was opened in the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of California on July 18, 2013 based upon Plaintiff’s letter to the Honorable 

Thelton E. Henderson alleging that prison staff at Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”)

had participated in a "pattern of racketeering activity" and thereby created an "extremely 

dangerous and stressful prison environment." (ECF No. 1.) 

Plaintiff was notified his action would be dismissed unless, by August 26, 2013, 

he submitted a complaint on the proper form and either paid the $400 filing fee or 

submitted a completed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application. (ECF Nos. 2, 3.) On 

Case 1:13-cv-01462-AWI-MJS Document 15 Filed 09/30/13 Page 1 of 7
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

September 10, 2013, the case was ordered transferred to this Court. (ECF No. 12.) 

The August 26, 2013 deadline has passed without Plaintiff filing a complaint on 

the proper form and either paying the $400 filing fee or submitting a completed in forma 

pauperis application. 

I. REQUIREMENT TO PROCEED IFP OR PAY FEE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. He has not paid the $400.00 filing fee or submitted an application to 

proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

Within thirty days from the date of this order, Plaintiff shall submit the attached 

application to proceed in forma pauperis, completed and signed, or in the alternative, 

pay the $400.00 filing fee for this action. No requests for extension will be granted 

without a showing of good cause. Within sixty (60) days of the date of service of this 

order, Plaintiff shall submit a certified copy of his/her prison trust statement for the six 

month period immediately preceding the filing of this action.

II. REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT CIVIL RIGHT COMPLAINT

Plaintiff’s July 18, 2013 letter does not state a cognizable federal claim. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

A. Pleading Standard

Section 1983 “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of any rights, 

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” 

Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990), quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method 

for vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 

393-94 (1989).

To state a claim under § 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); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243, 

Case 1:13-cv-01462-AWI-MJS Document 15 Filed 09/30/13 Page 2 of 7
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

1245 (9th Cir. 1987).

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 

the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations 

are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, 

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009), citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). 

Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is 

plausible on its face.” Id. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that 

a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are accepted as true, 

legal conclusions are not. Id. at 667-68.

The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised 

claims that are legally “frivolous, malicious,” or that fail to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 

such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion 

thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the 

court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

B. No Federal Claim Stated

1. No Named Individual Defendants

Plaintiff fails to name any defendant(s). Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). He may not 

proceed against unidentified defendants other than by naming “Doe” defendants.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each named 

Defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 

F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). The Supreme Court has emphasized that the term 

“supervisory liability,” loosely and commonly used by both courts and litigants alike, is a 

misnomer. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677. “Government officials may not be held liable for the 

unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior.” 

Id. at 676. Rather, each government official, regardless of his or her title, is only liable 

Case 1:13-cv-01462-AWI-MJS Document 15 Filed 09/30/13 Page 3 of 7
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

4

for his or her own misconduct, and therefore, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each 

Defendant, through his or her own individual actions, violated Plaintiff's constitutional 

rights. Id. at 676–77.

Plaintiff may not attribute liability to groups generally. See Chuman v. Wright, 76 

F.3d 292, 294–95 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding instruction permitting jury to find individual 

liable as member of team, without any showing of individual wrongdoing, is improper).

2. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Immune 

from Suit

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), allegedly 

engaged in racketeering, is immune from suit. The CDCR is a state agency and is 

entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Aholelei v. Dept. of Public Safety, 488 F.3d 

1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007).

3. Plaintiff May not Bring a Class Action

Plaintiff asserts this is a class action. However, Plaintiff is not an attorney and is 

proceeding without counsel. A non-attorney proceeding pro se may bring his own claims 

to court, but may not represent others. Fymbo v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 213 

F.3d 1320, 1321 (10th Cir. 2000); Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th 

Cir. 1997); C. E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987). 

A pro se litigant simply cannot “fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4); Fymbo, 213 F.3d at 1321. Therefore, this action will be 

construed as an individual civil suit brought by Plaintiff rather than as a class action.

4. Plaintiff May not Bring Criminal Action

Plaintiff does not have an individual right of action to enforce criminal statutes 

cited in his letter to Judge Henderson.1 Plaintiff may not file a criminal complaint. 28 

U.S.C. § 547; Ivey v. National Treasury Employees Union, No. 05-1147 (EGS), 2007 

WL 915229, *5 (D.D.C. Mar. 27, 2007); see also Figueroa v. Clark, 810 F.Supp. 613, 

 

1 Plaintiff cites to 18 U.S.C. §§ 241-242, 1512-1513, 1693, 1701-1703, 1951, 1959, 1961-1968. 

Case 1:13-cv-01462-AWI-MJS Document 15 Filed 09/30/13 Page 4 of 7
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

5

615 (E.D.Pa. 1992) (plaintiff “cannot bring criminal charges against defendants through 

a private lawsuit,”). Moreover, where federal statutes contain provisions for criminal 

penalties, citizen suits, judicial review, or even administrative proceedings alone, the 

Supreme Court has found the remedial scheme sufficiently comprehensive to foreclose 

an independent § 1983 cause of action. See City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 

544 U.S. 113, 121-22 (2005); see also Buckley v. City of Redding, 66 F.3d 188, 191-92 

(9th Cir. 1995).

III. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiff has not complied with Court orders that, by August 26, 2013, he submit a 

complaint on the proper form and either pay the $400 filing fee or submit a completed 

IFP application.

Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any 

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the 

inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may 

impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. 

Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with 

prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute, failure to obey a court order, or failure 

to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) 

(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-

61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 

a complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for 

failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 

address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal 

for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 

(9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to 

obey an order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several 

Case 1:13-cv-01462-AWI-MJS Document 15 Filed 09/30/13 Page 5 of 7
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

6

factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s 

need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public 

policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 

alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 

833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 

In the instant case, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 

and the Court’s interest in managing its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The third 

factor, risk of prejudice to defendant(s), also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a 

presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting 

this action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor --

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits -- is greatly outweighed by the 

factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, as for the availability of lesser 

sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available which would constitute 

a satisfactory lesser sanction while preserving scarce Court resources. Plaintiff has not 

paid the filing fee for this action and is likely unable to pay, making monetary sanctions 

of little use, and given the early stage of these proceedings, the preclusion of evidence

or witnesses is not available.

Plaintiff has not responded to Court orders (ECF No. 2, 3, 12). 

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER

Plaintiff has not responded to Court orders for prosecution of this action.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Clerk's Office shall send Plaintiff (1) a blank civil rights complaint form 

and (2) a copy of his letter to Judge Henderson filed July 18, 2013 (ECF 

No. 1);

2. Within thirty (30) days of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause as 

to why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with Court

orders (ECF No. 2, 3, 12), or file a complaint on the proper form and either 

an application to proceed in forma pauperis, or pay the $400 filing fee; and 

Case 1:13-cv-01462-AWI-MJS Document 15 Filed 09/30/13 Page 6 of 7
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

7

3. If Plaintiff fails to show cause, or file a complaint on the proper form and 

either file an application to proceed IFP or pay the $400 filing fee, it shall 

be recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure 

to obey Court orders and failure to prosecute, with all pending motions 

terminated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 30, 2013 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC _Signature- END:

12eob4

Case 1:13-cv-01462-AWI-MJS Document 15 Filed 09/30/13 Page 7 of 7