From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Corelleone v. Grounds

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION
Apr 10, 2012
No. C 11-4338 PJH (PR) (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2012)

Opinion

No. C 11-4338 PJH (PR)

04-10-2012

ACHILLES CORELLEONE, Plaintiff, v. RANDY GROUNDS; MATHEW CATE; BILL ZIKA, PhD; v. LOMELLI; Capt. MARTINEZ; D. FOSTER; C.D. REECE; L. KENNAMORE; and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants.


ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

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). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint "does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has recently explained the "plausible on its face" standard of Twombly: "While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009).

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 deprivation 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 claims that he was kept on lockdown for eleven months based on two rules violation reports. He contends that this "violated state law and CCR Title 15." This contention that state law was violated is not actionable under section 1983.

Plaintiff provides only the most conclusory allegations for his other claims; for instance, the entirety of his claim two is "[t]he 602 appeals process is unconstitutional (new 602 process," and the entirety of claim three is "[v]iolation of FEHA and American[s] with Disabilities Act." The remaining claims, four, five, seven (there is no claim six), eight, nine, and ten are equally sketchy. These allegations are far from sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. The complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

1. For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend, as indicated above, within thirty days from the date of this order. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to amend within the designated time will result in the dismissal of these claims.

2. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed "Notice of Change of Address," and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Corelleone v. Grounds

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION
Apr 10, 2012
No. C 11-4338 PJH (PR) (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2012)
Case details for

Corelleone v. Grounds

Case Details

Full title:ACHILLES CORELLEONE, Plaintiff, v. RANDY GROUNDS; MATHEW CATE; BILL ZIKA…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION

Date published: Apr 10, 2012

Citations

No. C 11-4338 PJH (PR) (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2012)

Citing Cases

Amegy Bank National Ass'n v. Monarch Flight II, LLC

We, therefore, do not consider [Moore's] prior allegations.”); Fullerton v. Maynard, No. 91–7002, 1991 WL…