Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05403/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05403-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lake County Jail
Defendant
Ivan Garcia Oliver
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IVAN GARCIA OLIVER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

LAKE COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

Defendants. _______________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

No. C 09-5403 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

On November 17, 2009, plaintiff, a California prisoner incarcerated at the Lake

County Jail and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. By separate order filed concurrently herewith, plaintiff has been granted leave to

proceed in forma pauperis. 

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.

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

Case 3:09-cv-05403-MMC Document 4 Filed 04/19/10 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

2

Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 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. Plaintiff’s Claim

Plaintiff alleges that officials at the Lake County Jail are denying him access to

magazines, in violation of the jail’s regulatory standards. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief. 

The complaint is subject to dismissal because plaintiff has failed to state a claim for

relief under § 1983. Specifically, plaintiff’s allegation that he is being denied magazines in

violation of jail regulations is not sufficient to state a § 1983 claim for relief because an

essential element of such claim, as noted, is the violation of a federal constitutional or

statutory right.

Further, the complaint is subject to dismissal because plaintiff has failed to provide

sufficient information for the Court to determine whether a cognizable claim for relief can be

stated against any defendant. In particular, while plaintiff asserts that certain acting sergeants

and unnamed correctional officers “played a role” and “participated” in the denial of

plaintiff’s magazines, he has not directly linked any of the defendants to his claims, nor

provided facts with respect to the date on which the injuries occurred or the surrounding

circumstances. Further, plaintiff has identified as defendants “all correctional officers Does I

though XX.” (Compl. at 3:15). The use of Doe defendants, however, is not favored in the

Ninth Circuit. Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). Consequently,

before plaintiff can proceed with his complaint he must identify all defendants named

therein.

Based on the above, the complaint will be dismissed. In view of plaintiff’s prisoner

pro se status, however, he may file an amended complaint if he can in good faith allege a

violation that is cognizable under § 1983 and facts, subject to proof, that cure the pleading

deficiencies noted above. 

Case 3:09-cv-05403-MMC Document 4 Filed 04/19/10 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

3

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the complaint is hereby DISMISSED with leave to

amend. Within thirty (30) days of the date this Order is filed, plaintiff may file an

AMENDED COMPLAINT, using the court’s form civil rights complaint, a copy of which

is provided herewith, in order to cure the deficiencies noted above. Plaintiff shall complete

the form, and include in the caption both the case number of this action, No. C 09-5403

MMC (PR), and the phrase “AMENDED COMPLAINT.” 

An amended complaint supersedes the initial complaint and may not incorporate by

reference any parts of the original complaint. London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811,

814 (9th Cir. 1981). Defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer

defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.1992). These rules govern

actions filed by pro se litigants as well as litigants represented by counsel. See King v.

Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).

It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court

informed of any change of address and must comply with the court’s orders in a timely

fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action, pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 41(b), for failure to prosecute.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 19, 2010 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-05403-MMC Document 4 Filed 04/19/10 Page 3 of 3