1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 DANNY CARDENAS, G36254, Case No. 20-cv-07538-CRB (PR) 7 Plaintiff, g v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL 9 CALIFORNIA, 10 Defendant(s). 11 On February 2, 2021, the court dismissed plaintiff's “confusing if not outright 12 || unintelligible” prisoner complaint under

with leave to amend to file a simple and 13 |} concise amended complaint that makes clear “who is being sued, for what relief, and on what 14 || theory....” ECF No. 11 at 1, 2 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). And because the 3 15 || complaint appears to be directed at a host of private individuals, the court reminded plaintiff that 16 || “aprivate individual does not act under color of state law, an essential element of a § 1983 5 17 || action.” Id. at 2 (citing Gomez v. Toledo,

(1980)). 5 18 On February 18, 2021, plaintiff filed an amended complaint the clerk docketed as a letter. 19 || See ECF No. 12. The amended complaint makes clear that plaintiffs allegations are directed at 20 || “Crystal Ann Cardenas,” a private individual who he claims falsely accused him of “touch[ing] 21 her 3 year old privately totally false.” Id. at 1. But because purely private conduct, no matter how 22 wrongful, is not covered under § 1983, see Outzs v. Maryland Nat’| Ins. Co.,

, 550 23 || (9th Cir. 1974), plaintiffs allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and 24 || this action must be DISMISSED with prejudice under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 25 The clerk is directed to close the file and terminate all pending motions as moot. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 || Dated: March 11, 2021 a □ □ CHARLES R. BREYER 28 United States District Judge