1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KENNETH OLIVER OWENS, #0290606, Case No. 21-cv-05949-CRB (PR)

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 9 v.

10 MIKE WIRTH, 11 Defendant(s).

12 Plaintiff, a pre-trial detainee at the San Mateo County Jail, has filed a pro se complaint 13 under

alleging that he was “threatened by a bunch of Hispanic ‘young’ men who 14 the Chevron employees in East Palo Alto California allow to use the Chevron facilities to hide and 15 make attempts to hurt or harass my person.” ECF No. 1 (Compl.) at 3. Plaintiff seeks “Chevron 16 video” showing similar misconduct at the station during the past 60 days and “twent[-]five 17 million” U.S. dollars from Chevron CEO Mike Wirth.

Plaintiff names no other defendant. 18 DISCUSSION 19 A. Standard of Review 20 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 21 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of 23 the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 24 may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.”

25 § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, however. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 26 Dep’t,

(9th Cir. 1990). 27 To state a claim under

, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a ] violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins,

|} 42, 48 (1988). 3 B. Legal Claims 4 It is well established that a private individual does not act under color of state law, an 5 essential element of a § 1983 action. See Gomez v. Toledo,

(1980). Purely 6 || private conduct, no matter how wrongful, is not covered under § 1983. See Ouzts v. Maryland 7 || Nat'l Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 1974). Simply put: There is no right to be free from the 8 infliction of constitutional deprivations by private individuals. See Van Ort v. Estate of 9 Stanewich,

(9th Cir. 1996). 10 Consequently, plaintiffs claim for damages from Chevron CEO Mike Wirth for the acts or 11 omissions of Chevron employees in East Palo Alto, and request for video to support his claim, is 12 || not cognizable under § 1983. See id. Plaintiffs claim should be brought in state court, if at all. 13 CONCLUSION 14 For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for 3 15 failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The dismissal is without prejudice to 16 seeking relief in state court. i 17 IT ISSO ORDERED. 18 || Dated: August 13, 2021 1 k~— CHARLES R. BREYER 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28