1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ROBERT J. ALEXANDER-CAMPOS, Case No. 22-cv-03149-PJH

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9

10 MILTON GERMAN MARIN-REYES, et al., 11 Defendants.

12

13 Plaintiff, a detainee, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under

. 14 He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 15 DISCUSSION 16 STANDARD OF REVIEW 17 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners 18 seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 19 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any 21 claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 22 granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 23 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica 24 Police Dep’t,

(9th Cir. 1990). 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement 26 of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although a complaint “does not 27 need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his 1 ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic 2 recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must 3 be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 4 Twombly,

(2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough 5 facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”

. The United States 6 Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While 7 legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by 8 factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should 9 assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an 10 entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). 11 LEGAL CLAIMS 12 Plaintiff states that he was attacked at a car dealership by an employee. He also 13 states that he was improperly arrested and is currently being prosecuted by the district 14 attorney’s office which has not turned over exculpatory evidence. 15 To state a claim under

, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right 16 secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged 17 deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. 18 Atkins,

(1988). 19 Under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with 20 ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief absent 21 extraordinary circumstances. See Younger v. Harris,

(1971). Federal 22 courts should not enjoin pending state criminal prosecutions absent a showing of the 23 state’s bad faith or harassment, or a showing that the statute challenged is “flagrantly and 24 patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions.”

(cost, anxiety 25 and inconvenience of criminal defense not kind of special circumstances or irreparable 26 harm that would justify federal court intervention; statute must be unconstitutional in 27 every “clause, sentence and paragraph, and in whatever manner” it is applied). 1 To the extent plaintiff seeks money damages due to the assault from a private 2 citizen, he is not entitled to relief under § 1983 because the employee of the car 3 dealership was not acting under the color of state law. Plaintiff may be able to seek relief 4 in state court. Nor has plaintiff demonstrated extraordinary circumstances to warrant 5 federal court intervention in his criminal prosecution. Plaintiff should speak to his 6 assigned counsel regarding exculpatory evidence. 7 CONCLUSION 8 1. This action is DISMISSED for failure to state claim. 9 2. The clerk shall close this case. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: July 7, 2022 12 13 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 14 United States District Judge

15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27