Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00409/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00409-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Union Bank of California
Defendant
Valentine B. Usochu
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

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VALENTINE B. USOCHU, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA, )

 )

)

)

)

Defendant. )

 )

1:07cv0409 AWI SMS 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

Plaintiff Valentine B. Usochu is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this action, filed on March 14, 2007. Plaintiff submits his complaint on a form used for civil

rights actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and names Union Bank of California as Defendant.

A. Screening Standard

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must conduct an initial review of the

complaint for sufficiency to state a claim. The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof

if the court determines that the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the court determines that the complaint fails to state

a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be

cured by amendment.

Case 1:07-cv-00409-AWI -SMS Document 10 Filed 06/19/07 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

26

27

28

2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) provides:

A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an original claim, counterclaim, 

cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the

grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, unless the court already has

jurisdiction and the claim needs no new grounds of jurisdiction to support it, (2) a short

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a

demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Relief in the alternative or of

several different types may be demanded.

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair

notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev.

Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of

particularity overt acts which the defendants engaged in that support Plaintiff's claim. Id. 

Although a complaint need not outline all elements of a claim, it must be possible to infer from

the allegations that all elements exist and that there is entitlement to relief under some viable

legal theory. Walker v. South Cent. Bell Telephone Co., 904 F.2d 275, 277 (5th Cir. 1990);

Lewis v. ACB Business Service, Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 405-06 (6th Cir. 1998).

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the Court must accept as true the allegations

of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740

(1976), construe the pro se pleadings liberally in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick

v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor,

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

B. Discussion

Plaintiff’s complaint fails for two reasons. First and foremost, he cannot state a claim

against Union Bank of California, a private entity, in an action pursuant to 42. U.S.C. § 1983. 

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at

law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. “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)

Case 1:07-cv-00409-AWI -SMS Document 10 Filed 06/19/07 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

26

27

28

3

(internal quotations omitted). Union Bank of California is a private company with which

Plaintiff presumably did business, and it is not liable under section 1983, which provides a cause

of action against government actors. Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School

Athletic Assoc., 531 U.S. 288, 295, 121 S.Ct. 924, 930 (2001); Single Moms, Inc. v. Montana

Power Co., 331 F.3d 743, 746-47 (9th Cir. 2003); Sutton v. Providence St. Joseph Med. Ctr., 192

F.3d 826, 835 (9th Cir. 1999); Price v. Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 707-08 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Second, Plaintiff’s complaint consists of the following statement: “I should get my

money back 1400 dollars that the bank took from me.” Complaint, at 2. On the section of the

form provided for a statement of his claim, he simply states, “1400.” Complaint, at 2. His

complaint thus fails to satisfy Rule 8 and does not allow for further evaluation. 

Plaintiff’s complaint therefore fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted

under section 1983. The deficiencies are not curable, Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th

Cir. 2000), and the complaint should be dismissed without leave to amend.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the above, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be

DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND for failure to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the Honorable Anthony W.

Ishii, United States District Judge, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). 

Within thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff

may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 18, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00409-AWI -SMS Document 10 Filed 06/19/07 Page 3 of 3