1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RAMON NAVARRO LUPERCIO, Case No. 21-cv-03173-JST

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9

10 MACARIO MENDOZA, Defendant. 11

12 13 Plaintiff, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, has filed a pro se action pursuant to 42

against Macario Mendoza. His complaint is now before the Court for review under 15 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate 16 order. 17 DISCUSSION 18 A. Standard of Review 19 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 20 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 22 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 23 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 24 (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See United States v. Qazi,

989, 993 (9th Cir. 2020). 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 27 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not 1 2 grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007) (citations omitted). 3 While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands more than an unadorned, 4 the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

, 677–78 (2009). 5 A pleading that offers only labels and conclusions, or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 6 cause of action, or naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement does not suffice.

7 To state a claim under

, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 8 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that 9 the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. 10 Atkins,

(1988). 11 B. Complaint 12 Plaintiff brings suit against a private individual, Macario Mendoza, arguing that in 13 Plaintiff’s 2003 jury trial, Mr. Mendoza lied on the stand and falsely identified Mr. Mendoza’s 14 assailant. Plaintiff also alleges that a kidnapping took place, but it is unclear who kidnapped 15 whom. Plaintiff further alleges that Mr. Mendoza sexually abused three girls and that the family 16 of one of the victims was in the courtroom during the trial. Plaintiff appears to be arguing that, 17 based on the foregoing, he is innocent of the crime for which he is incarcerated. Plaintiff seeks 18 $25 million in compensatory damages from Mr. Mendoza, and also mentions wanting a new jury 19 trial. 20 The complaint will be DISMISSED with prejudice because it fails to state a claim under 42

. Plaintiff has not alleged a violation of a federal law or of the federal constitution, 22 and Mr. Mendoza is a private individual, not a person acting under the color of state law. In 23 addition, Plaintiff appears to be challenging the validity of his conviction. If Plaintiff wishes to 24 challenge his conviction, he must do so by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Hill v. 25 McDonough,

(2006) (“‘Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on 26 complaints related to imprisonment: a petition for habeas corpus,

, and a 27 complaint under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. § 1979, as amended,

. 1 province of habeas corpus .. .””) (quoting Muhammad v. Close,

(2004)). 2 CONCLUSION 3 For the reasons set forth above, the complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to 4 || state aclaim. All pending motions are denied as moot. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of 5 || Defendant and against Plaintiff and close the case. The Clerk shall send Plaintiff two copies of the 6 || form habeas petition. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || Dated: March 8, 2022 . ? JON S. TIGAR 10 nited States District Judge 11 a 12

13

15 16

it

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28