Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01437/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01437-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fresno County Jail
Defendant
Allen Richardson
Plaintiff

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALLEN RICHARDSON, 1:05-CV-1437 REC-SMS- P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION 

FRESNO COUNTY JAIL, 

(DOCUMENT #1)

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff is a former prisoner proceeding with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983.

On October 31, 2005, Plaintiff submitted a civil complaint naming the Fresno County Jail

as Defendant in the U.S. District Court of Maryland. The case was subsequently transferred and

received in this Court on November 15, 2005. 

A. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

“frivolous or malicious,” 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

Case 1:05-cv-01437-REC -SMS Document 4 Filed 12/20/05 Page 1 of 3
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

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). 

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding,

467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v.

Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

B. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff, while confined in the Fresno County Jail, slipped

and fell while wearing a “jelly type shoe” issued to him by jail staff. (Complaint at 1.) Plaintiff

states that as a result of the fall he sustained a broken jaw and has since been diagnosed with a

bone broken in the ear due to the fall in jail. (Complaint at 2.) 

C. ANALYSIS

“Section 1983 . . . creates a cause of action for violations of the federal Constitution and

laws.” Sweaney v. Ada County, Idaho, 119 F.3d 1385, 1391 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal quotations

omitted). “To the extent that the violation of a state law amounts to the deprivation of a statecreated interest that reaches beyond that guaranteed by the federal Constitution, Section 1983

offers no redress.” Id. 

In this case, Plaintiff’s allegations appear to state a claim for relief based on negligence. 

However, as noted above, a violation of state tort law is not sufficient to state a claim for relief

under § 1983. Accordingly, the Complaint must be dismissed. Should Plaintiff wish to pursue

this claim, he may wish to file an action in state court. 

D. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Case 1:05-cv-01437-REC -SMS Document 4 Filed 12/20/05 Page 2 of 3
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

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief

under section 1983. Further, the Court finds that the deficiencies outlined above are not capable

of being cured by amendment, and therefore leave to amend should not be granted. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the

Court RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed in its entirety.

It is HEREBY ORDERED that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted to the

United States District Court Judge assigned to the case pursuant to the provision of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District

Court, Eastern District of California. Within TWENTY (20) days after being served with a copy

of this Report and Recommendation, any party may file written objections with the Court and

serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the Objections shall be served and filed

within TEN (10) court days (plus three (3) days if served by mail) after service of the Objections. 

The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). 

The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.

1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 16, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01437-REC -SMS Document 4 Filed 12/20/05 Page 3 of 3