Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06277/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06277-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gabriel McDaniels
Plaintiff
Benjamen T Reyes
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GABRIEL MCDANIELS,

Plaintiff,

v.

BENJAMEN T REYES,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-06277-JST 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITH PREJUDICE

Re: ECF No. 10

Plaintiff Gabriel McDaniels, proceeding pro se, brings a trespass claim against Benjamin 

T. Reyes. ECF Nos. 1, 10. 

Magistrate Judge Beeler granted McDaniels’s application for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, ECF No. 4, and dismissed McDaniels’s original complaint with leave to amend under 28 

U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) based on a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, ECF No. 5. When McDaniels 

failed to timely amend, the case was reassigned to this Court, which adopted Judge Beeler’s report 

and recommendations and dismissed the complaint, granting McDaniels another opportunity to 

amend. ECF No. 8. 

Before the Court is McDaniels’ timely amended complaint. ECF No. 10. When an 

application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, a court is under a continuing duty to dismiss a 

case whenever it determines that the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim 

on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune 

from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). “[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits but requires a 

district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.” Lopez v. Smith, 

203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

Based on the amended complaint’s incorporation of the text of 18 U.S.C. § 242, ECF No. 

Case 3:18-cv-06277-JST Document 11 Filed 02/15/19 Page 1 of 2
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

10 at 3-4, the Court construes McDaniels as alleging a claim under that statute. This does not cure 

the deficiencies identified in the Judge Beeler’s previous order. 

Section 242 establishes criminal penalties “for acting ‘willfully’ ‘under color of any law’ 

to ‘subject’ another ‘to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected 

by the Constitution or laws of the United States.’” United States v. Reese, 2 F.3d 870, 880 (9th 

Cir. 1993) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 242)). McDaniels cannot bring a claim under section 242 because 

it does not confer a private right of action. See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 

1980). 

Even were the Court to construe McDaniels’ claim as one under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 

McDaniels still fails to state a claim. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must 

allege two 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. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). McDaniels refers to a trespass having been 

committed against him by an unidentified “wrongdoer” (who is presumably Reyes) but provides 

no other facts. Because McDaniels has not stated any facts regarding Reyes or the nature of the 

alleged trespass, the Court cannot assess whether Reyes’s purported conduct plausibly rises to the 

level of a federal statutory or constitutional violation or whether Reyes is a state actor. 

Accordingly, the Court will again dismiss the complaint. Having reviewed the amended 

complaint, the Court concludes that amendment would be futile. Dismissal is therefore with 

prejudice. 

The Clerk is directed to enter a judgment of dismissal and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 14, 2019

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-06277-JST Document 11 Filed 02/15/19 Page 2 of 2