From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bennett v. Newsom

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Aug 29, 2023
2:23-cv-0040 DAD CKD P (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2023)

Opinion

2:23-cv-0040 DAD CKD P

08-29-2023

DAVID BENNETT, Plaintiff, v. GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

CAROLYN K. DELANEY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff is a state detainee proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. As plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), his request will be granted. Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff's trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month's income credited to plaintiff's prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff's account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

The court has reviewed plaintiff's complaint and finds that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under federal law. Plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file an amended complaint.

For the most part, plaintiff's complaint is vague and confusing.Plaintiff seems to complain about treatment for those who are homeless, such as conditions in homeless shelters, but fails to point to anything suggesting he has suffered any violations of federal law.

The court notes that plaintiff's complaint initially purports to be a class action. In a later filing, however, (ECF No. 12), plaintiff asks to proceed alone. Good cause appearing, his request to proceed as a sole plaintiff will be granted; the court will not consider allegations pertaining to anyone other than plaintiff.

If plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint cannot exceed 20 pages and plaintiff's allegations must be focused on stating an actionable claim. Plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff's constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, in his amended complaint, plaintiff must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant's actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

Finally, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 11) is granted.

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court's order to the Director of the California Department of Mental Health filed concurrently herewith.

3. Plaintiff's “motion to remove class members” (ECF No. 12) is granted.

4. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed.

5. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.


Summaries of

Bennett v. Newsom

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Aug 29, 2023
2:23-cv-0040 DAD CKD P (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2023)
Case details for

Bennett v. Newsom

Case Details

Full title:DAVID BENNETT, Plaintiff, v. GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Aug 29, 2023

Citations

2:23-cv-0040 DAD CKD P (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2023)