From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

HASH v. HINKE

United States District Court, N.D. California
Oct 14, 2005
No. C 05-2291 MMC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2005)

Opinion

No. C 05-2291 MMC.

October 14, 2005


ORDER OF DISMISSAL


Lawrence Hash, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and against private investigators he retained to gather evidence on his behalf. He alleges that such defendants failed to adequately perform after he paid them $1000, and that they will not return his money. He has applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a party seeks to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), (e)(2). In its review, the court must dismiss any claims that 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. See id. 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 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

A private individual does not act under color of state law, an essential element of a § 1983 action. See Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980). Purely private conduct, no matter how wrongful, is not covered under § 1983. See Ouzts v. Maryland Nat'l Ins. Co., 505 F.2d 547, 559 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 949 (1975). Simply put: there is no constitutional right to be free from the infliction of deprivations by private individuals. See Van Ort v. Estate of Stanewich, 92 F.3d 831, 835 (9th Cir. 1996). As the defendants named in the complaint are private individuals, plaintiff's claims against them do not state a cognizable claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Accordingly, the complaint is hereby DISMISSED.

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

HASH v. HINKE

United States District Court, N.D. California
Oct 14, 2005
No. C 05-2291 MMC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2005)
Case details for

HASH v. HINKE

Case Details

Full title:LAWRENCE GEORGE HASH, Plaintiff, v. SUSAN HINKE, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, N.D. California

Date published: Oct 14, 2005

Citations

No. C 05-2291 MMC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2005)