1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 DAVID B. LOAIZA, 7 Case No. 24-cv-01758 EJD (PR) Plaintiff, 8 ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 9 v.

10

JUAN ARZOLA, et al., 11 Defendants. 12

13 14 Plaintiff, a California parolee, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 15

. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 16 will be addressed in a separate order. 17 18 DISCUSSION 19 A. Standard of Review 20 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 21 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 22 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 23 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 24 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 25 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally 26 construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t,

(9th Cir. 1988). 27 To state a claim under

, a plaintiff must allege two essential 1 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 2 color of state law. See West v. Atkins,

(1988). 3 B. Plaintiff’s Claims 4 Plaintiff names two individuals as defendants in the caption of his form complaint: 5 Juan Arzola and Berry Patterson. Dkt. No. 1 at 1. Then under “Parties,” he lists the 6 following as additional plaintiffs: “President Biden, Trump, Wilson, Kim un ung, FBI, 7 law-enforcement of Oceanside, correctional officers, People of San Luis Rey River, 8 humanity children of God, the Va[t]ican in Rome, churches.” Id. at 2. 9 Under the “Statement of Claims,” Plaintiff states as follows: “These individuals fall 10 under all Terrorist acts in our country and nations. They are the ‘new world order’ society 11 movement. Please see attachments.” Id. However, there are no attachments to this 3-page 12 form complaint. Lastly, under “Relief,” Plaintiff states:

13 I would like the court to help me file char[g]es against these individuals 14 who have [e]nvaded, treasoned, spied, who have done everything the attachments said they did. I would like to tr[y] them in front of all world 15 leaders and religious leaders. This is a society who murders, rapes, networks through your minds. 16 Id. at 3. 17 The complaint fails to state even one cognizable claim under § 1983 because it is 18 largely nonsensical and vague. First of all, Plaintiff sets forth no factual allegations against 19 Defendants Arzola and Patterson to establish that these two individuals are state actors, nor 20 does he describe their actions to indicate that they violated his rights under the Constitution 21 or other federal law. Secondly, the relief he seeks, i.e., to pursue a criminal action against 22 them, is simply not available in a section 1983 action. “[A] private citizen lacks a 23 judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.” Linda R. S. 24 v. Richard D.,

, 619 (1973). Courts therefore generally have declined to 25 recognize standing to bring a § 1983 action based upon the lack of prosecution of others. 26 See Doyle v. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n,

, 1566-67 (10th Cir. 1993) (private 27

F.2d 224, 227 (4th Cir. 1988) (neither member of public at large nor victim 2 has right to have another criminally prosecuted). Lastly, Plaintiff may not include other 3 plaintiffs in this action. He may only represent himself and seek relief for his personal 4 injuries, not those of others. Even if Plaintiff intended to include these additional parties 5 as defendants, the pleadings are deficient for the same reason discussed above, i.e., failure 6 to allege sufficient facts to state a claim. Plaintiff shall be granted leave to file an amended 7 complaint to attempt to state a cognizable claim under section 1983. 8 In preparing an amended complaint, Plaintiff should keep the following legal 9 principles in mind. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and 10 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts 11 are not necessary; the statement need only ‘“give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . 12 claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”’” Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007) 13 (citations omitted). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the 14 speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007) 15 (citations omitted). To state a claim that is plausible on its face, a plaintiff must allege 16 facts that “allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for 17 the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). 18 Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under § 1983 only if Plaintiff 19 can show that the defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a federally protected 20 right. See Leer v. Murphy,

(9th Cir. 1988). A person deprives another 21 of a constitutional right within the meaning of section 1983 if he does an affirmative act, 22 participates in another’s affirmative act or omits to perform an act which he is legally 23 required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complaints.

. 24 25 CONCLUSION 26 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 27 1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Within twenty-eight 1 || the deficiencies described above. The amended complaint must include the caption and 2 || civil case number used in this order, Case No. 24-cv-01758 EJD (PR), and the words 3 || “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. If using the court form complaint, Plaintiff 4 || must answer all the questions on the form in order for the action to proceed. The amended 5 || complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent. 6 || Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino,

(9th Cir. 2015). Consequently, 7 || claims not included in an amended complaint are no longer claims and defendants not 8 || named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 9 || F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). 10 2. Failure to respond in accordance with this order in the time provided 11 || will result in the dismissal with prejudice of this action for failure to state a claim, without further notice to Plaintiff. 13 3. The Clerk shall include two copies of the court’s complaint with a copy of 14 || this order to Plaintiff. IT IS SO ORDERED. aso. 16 Dated: July 23, 2024 5 7 EDWARD J. DAVILA United States District Judge Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28