Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05623/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05623-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Byron Hobbs
Plaintiff
James Smith
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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BYRON HOBBS,

Plaintiffs,

 vs.

JAMES SMITH,

Defendant. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

C 06-5623 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Docket Nos. 2 & 5)

On September 14, 2006, plaintiff, an inmate at the San Francisco County Jail and

proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

alleging another inmate, James Smith, struck him in the face. Plaintiff has applied for leave

to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Where a plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the district court must dismiss

the case if it determines the complaint “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Pro se pleadings, however, must be liberally construed. 

See Balistreri v. 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 color of

state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Defendant James Smith, an inmate, is

not a person acting “under color of state law.” See Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640

(1980) (holding private individual does not act under color of state law). Consequently,

plaintiff’s claims against defendant James Smith are not cognizable under § 1983. 

Case 3:06-cv-05623-MMC Document 6 Filed 01/03/07 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

Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint is hereby DISMISSED for failure to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted. 

In light of the dismissal, plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby

DENIED and no fee is due.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 2 and 5.

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 3, 2007 

 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05623-MMC Document 6 Filed 01/03/07 Page 2 of 2