Briggs v. Baker ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 RONNIE BRIGGS, 11 Plaintiff, No. C 20-04243 WHA 12 v. 13 ADDENTON BRIAN BAKER, ARRON ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S CHAPMAN, and BJAMES NIE JULIE, COMPLAINT 14 Defendants. 15 16 INTRODUCTION 17 Pro se plaintiff Ronnie Briggs filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983 18 complaining about everything from assault, fabrication of evidence, kidnapping, robbery, and 19 theft while being confined at an unspecified facility. He is granted leave to proceed in forma 20 pauperis in a separate order. For the reasons discussed below, the complaint is DISMISSED 21 without prejudice. 22 DISCUSSION 23 In cases in which a plaintiff seeks to proceed without the prepayment of the required filing 24 fee and attendant fees for service of process, courts have long had the authority to dismiss in 25 forma pauperis complaints if satisfied that the claims asserted are frivolous, malicious, fail to state 26 a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is 27 immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 1 Section 1915(e)(2)(B) applies equally to prisoner and non-prisoner in forma pauperis 2 cases. See Newsome v. EEOC, 301 F.3d 227, 231–33 (5th Cir. 2002) (affirming dismissal 3 of non-prisoner claims for frivolity and failure to state a claim under Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & 4 (ii)); Cieszkowska v. Gray Line N.Y., 295 F.3d 204, 205–06 (2d Cir. 2002) (affirming dismissal 5 of in forma pauperis non-prisoner case for failure to state a claim pursuant to Section 6 1915(e)(2)); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 1998) (affirming dismissal 7 of 1983 action for failure to state a claim by non-prisoner, former detainee against state law 8 enforcement personnel). 9 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) 10 that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the 11 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Adkins, 487 12 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). At the pleading stage, “[a] plaintiff must allege facts, not simply 13 conclusions, that show that an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of his civil 14 rights.” Barren, at 1194. Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica 15 Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). District courts must afford pro se prisoner 16 litigants an opportunity to amend to correct any deficiency in their complaints. Lopez v. Smith, 17 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 18 Plaintiff’s complaint is patently deficient in material respects. First, despite great effort 19 and liberal construction in reading the complaint, the Court cannot ascertain neither the precise 20 substance of plaintiff’s grievances nor who is allegedly responsible. The paragraph long 21 complaint, starts with a conclusory one-sentence allegation about being attacked from behind by 22 an individual named “arron [sic]” — without stating that person’s full name, official position or 23 place of employment — and then inexplicably alleges, in the same sentence, that “they”— again, 24 without any specificity — started to play games with his police records, calling him a “51/50”, 25 and then sending him to jail on a “made up” probation violation, and, finally, that an unspecified 26 property of his was stolen (See Dkt. No. 6). 27 Secondly, plaintiff does not allege any facts that would enable the Court to determine 1 complaint names “Addenton Briak Baker,” “Arron Chapman,” and “BJames Nie Julie” and then 2 makes a notation of “city officials” at the end, it does not state who these individuals are, which 3 || city they work for, in what capacity, or any other information that would allow the Court to 4 || ascertain whether or not plaintiff's claims against them would be actionable under Section 1983. 5 || Indeed, in response to the section in the form-complaint asking him to “provide full name, 6 || official position and place of employment,” plaintiff just noted a designation of not applicable 7 (See Dkt. No. 6). 8 Accordingly, the complaint does not state sufficient facts which liberally construed would 9 || allow the Court to draw the reasonable inference that plaintiff's rights under the Constitution or 10 laws of the United States were violated, or that any such violation was carried out by individuals 11 acting under color of state law. CONCLUSION 13 For these reasons, plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state 14 any cognizable claims under Section 1983. 3 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 = 17 Dated: August 14, 2020. 18 19 A om J | . 4 LIAM ALSUP 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28