From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dominguez v. Felix

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Dec 17, 2021
21-cv-08876-JD (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2021)

Opinion

21-cv-08876-JD

12-17-2021

ELIJAH DOMINGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. MARIA LISA FELIX, Defendant.


ORDER RE DISMISSAL

JAMES DONATO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff, a detainee, 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 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.” Although 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 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, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

LEGAL CLAIMS

Plaintiff contends that the defendant in this case, his mother, withdrew money from his bank account while he was detained in the county jail. Complaint at 2-3. For relief he seeks the money to be placed back in his account. These allegations fail to state a claim under § 1983 and are frivolous. Plaintiff has failed to allege that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated or that his mother was acting under the color of state law. Because no amount of amendment would cure the deficiencies of the complaint, this action is dismissed without leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim.

2. The Clerk is requested to CLOSE this case. IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Dominguez v. Felix

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Dec 17, 2021
21-cv-08876-JD (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2021)
Case details for

Dominguez v. Felix

Case Details

Full title:ELIJAH DOMINGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. MARIA LISA FELIX, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Dec 17, 2021

Citations

21-cv-08876-JD (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2021)