Opinion
No. C 03s-5059 CRB (PR), (Doc #2)
November 18, 2003
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Marin County Jail, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that on March 16, 2003, before he was incarcerated, Golden Gate Transportation Bus Driver Bill Collier closed the door on his bus as plaintiff was trying to get on the bus and injured plaintiff's leg. Plaintiff seeks damages on the ground that Collier "caused plaintiff to be injured through his carelessness, while plaintiff was trying to board public transportation." Compl. Attach, at 3.
Plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
DISCUSSION
A. Standard of ReviewFederal 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). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint "is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted," or "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
B. Legal Claims
The Constitution does not guarantee due care on the part of state officials; liability for negligently inflicted harm is categorically beneath the threshold of constitutional due process. See County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 849 (1998); Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 348 (1986); Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986). Only conduct intended to injure in some way unjustifiable by any government interest is the sort of official action likely to rise to the conscience-shocking level required to support a substantive due process claim under § 1983. See Lewis, 523 U.S. at 849.
Although regrettable, plaintiff's allegations are DISMISSED because they do not rise to the conscience-shocking level required to support a substantive due process claim under § 1983. See id Plaintiff's allegations at most support a state law claim for damages plaintiff must pursue in state, not federal, court. Plaintiff accordingly is free to seek damages in state court.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (doc #2) is DENIED and the complaint is DISMISSED.
The Clerk shall close the file and terminate all pending motions as moot.
No fee is due.
SO ORDERED.