Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03104/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03104-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Henry Chartrand
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN HENRY CHARTRAND, 

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

UNKNOWN DRIVER,

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 10-3104 CRB (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a prisoner at San Quentin State Prison, has filed a pro se civil

rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that in August 2009 he was hit

"head on" by An unknown driver who ran four-way stop. He seeks damages

from this unknown driver on the grounds that the driver got him to leave the

scene and gave false information to the police to hide being at fault.

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). The court must identify cognizable

claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint

"is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

Case 3:10-cv-03104-CRB Document 6 Filed 08/16/10 Page 1 of 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 2

granted," or "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

relief." Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri

v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

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).

B. Legal Claims

Plaintiff's claim for damages against the unknown driver who hit him at a

four-way stop must be dismissed because it is well established that a private

individual does not act under color of state law, an essential element of a § 1983

action. See Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980). Purely private

conduct, no matter how wrongful, is not covered under § 1983. Ouzts v.

Maryland Nat'l Ins. Co., 505 F.2d 547, 550 (9th Cir. 1974). Simply put: There is

no right to be free from the infliction of constitutional deprivations by private

individuals. Van Ort v. Estate of Stanewich, 92 F.3d 831, 835 (9th Cir. 1996).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED for failure to

state claim under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 

The clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this order, terminate all

pending motions as moot, and close the file. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Aug. 13, 2010 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.10\Chartrand, J1.dismiss.wpd

Case 3:10-cv-03104-CRB Document 6 Filed 08/16/10 Page 2 of 2