Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20121211_0016744.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-06-23 04:54:05
Document Index: 635364934

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 636', '§ 1914', '§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

SACRAMENTO REGIONAL TRANSIT,
Plaintiff is proceeding in this case pro se. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff previously submitted an incomplete application to proceed without prepayment of fees, and was ordered to complete the application. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a). Plaintiff has now submitted a completed application making the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.
The complaint names Sacramento Regional Transit as the only defendant, but alleges that a Wackenhut security officer named Torres harassed and assaulted plaintiff with pepper spray while he was on a Sacramento Regional Transit train on August 23, 2009. An unnamed Regional Transit driver then allegedly lied to cover up this incident. The complaint asserts that there is federal jurisdiction because the action was committed on a Sacramento Regional Transit train. Plaintiff then alleges that "[t]he action was thrown out of court*fn1 " because there was no video evidence. Plaintiff seeks damages for violation of his constitutional rights because he was apparently placed in jail and stripped as a result of this incident.
The complaint claims only that there is federal jurisdiction because the assault against plaintiff took place on a "Sacramento Regional Transit Train and property under federal jurisdiction on tungsten steel railroad tracks." Bare conclusory allegations of this sort are not sufficient to establish jurisdiction. If plaintiff intends to establish federal question jurisdiction, he must properly set forth a claim under a specific federal statute or a specific amendment to the United States Constitution.
Plaintiff does not reference the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983), and does not allege that Sacramento Regional Transit is a state actor. The undersigned makes no finding of whether this entity would be considered a state actor. If plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint, he is informed that § 1983 requires state action. To succeed on a § 1983 damages claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate not only the deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, but that defendant acted under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48, 108 S. Ct. 2250 (1988). A § 1983 claim can lie against a private party only when "he is a willful participant in joint action with the State or its agents." Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 27, 101 S. Ct. 183 (1980).
For plaintiff to proceed with a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Sacramento Regional Transit, plaintiff would have to establish state action on the part of this defendant. The Ninth Circuit has identified four tests to identify state action by an otherwise private party: "(1) public function; (2) joint action; (3) governmental compulsion or coercion; and (4) governmental nexus." Kirtley v. Rainey, 326 F.3d 1088, 1092 (9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff has alleged none of these factual predicates vis-a-vis state action, and the complaint does not reasonably establish any. Rather, the complaint alleges ...