Cardenas v. California

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6 DANNY CARDENAS, G36254, Case No. 20-cv-07538-CRB (PR) 7 Plaintiff, g v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL

9 CALIFORNIA,

Defendant(s).

On February 2, 2021, the court dismissed plaintiff's “confusing if not outright || unintelligible” prisoner complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with leave to amend to file a simple and |} concise amended complaint that makes clear “who is being sued, for what relief, and on what || theory....” ECF No. 11 at 1, 2 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). And because the || complaint appears to be directed at a host of private individuals, the court reminded plaintiff that || “aprivate individual does not act under color of state law, an essential element of a § 1983 || action.” Id. at 2 (citing Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980)).

18 On February 18, 2021, plaintiff filed an amended complaint the clerk docketed as a letter. See ECF No. 12. The amended complaint makes clear that plaintiffs allegations are directed at “Crystal Ann Cardenas,” a private individual who he claims falsely accused him of “touch[ing] her 3 year old privately totally false.” Id. at 1. But because purely private conduct, no matter how wrongful, is not covered under § 1983, see Outzs v. Maryland Nat’| Ins. Co., 505 F.2d 547, 550 (9th Cir. 1974), plaintiffs allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and this action must be DISMISSED with prejudice under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The clerk is directed to close the file and terminate all pending motions as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2021 a □ □

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge