1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 Case No. 24-cv-02629 BLF 12 MATTHEW B . MAJOR, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH Plaintiff, LEAVE TO AMEND 13 v. 14

15 WARDEN MCVEGE, et al.,

16 Defendants.

17 18 Plaintiff, a state inmate, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to

19 against several parole officers in San Jose and several individuals at Valley State Prison 20 (“VSP”), where Plaintiff was previously incarcerated. Dkt. No. 1. This matter was 21 reassigned to the undersigned. Dkt. No. 6. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma 22 pauperis will be addressed in a separate order. 23 24 DISCUSSION 25 I. Standard of Review 26 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 27 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 1 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 2 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 3 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 4 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally 5 construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t,

(9th Cir. 1988). 6 To state a claim under

, a plaintiff must allege two essential 7 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 8 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 9 color of state law. See West v. Atkins,

(1988). 10 II. Plaintiff’s Claims 11 Plaintiff states that he was paroled to San Jose on April 4, 2022. Dkt. No. 1 at 3. 12 However, at the time he filed this complaint, Plaintiff was at the San Mateo Jail. Id. at 1. 13 Plaintiff claims that VSP has failed to release the remaining balance ($1,700) that was in 14 his inmate trust account when he got paroled. Id. at 3. He claims that parole agents have 15 ignored his grievances and forms filed in this matter. Id. He wants the Court to have VSP 16 give him his money, and for Valley Medical to produce his medical records. Id. at 3. 17 The complaint fails to state any cognizable claim for relief against the named 18 Defendants. First of all, any claim against VSP and its employees must be filed in the 19 Eastern District, which has jurisdiction over claims arising out of Madera County where 20 VSP is located.

(b). Furthermore, Plaintiff fails to allege facts showing that 21 San Jose parole agents violated his constitutional rights. There are no allegations 22 indicating that they are responsible for the failure of VSP to return Plaintiff’s money or 23 that they have any authority to act on this issue. Lastly, Plaintiff fails to provide any basis 24 for the relief he seeks against Valley Medical for his medical records. Valley Medical is 25 not a state actor, as far as the Court is aware, and Plaintiff fails to allege how this hospital 26 has violated his constitutional rights to state a claim under § 1983. 1 Plaintiff shall be granted leave to file an amended complaint to state a cognizable 2 claim under § 1983. Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under § 1983 3 only if Plaintiff can show that the defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a 4 federally protected right. See Leer v. Murphy,

(9th Cir. 1988); Harris v. 5 City of Roseburg,

(9th Cir. 1981). A person deprives another of a 6 constitutional right within the meaning of section 1983 if he does an affirmative act, 7 participates in another’s affirmative act or omits to perform an act which he is legally 8 required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains. See Leer, 844 9 F.2d at 633. 10 11 CONCLUSION 12 For the reasons state above, the Court orders as follows: 13 1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Within twenty-eight 14 (28) days from the date this order is filed, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint using 15 the court’s form complaint to correct the deficiencies described above. The amended 16 complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order, i.e., Case No. 17 C 24-cv-02629 BLF (PR), and the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. 18 Plaintiff must answer all the questions on the form in order for the action to proceed. 19 Plaintiff is reminded that the amended complaint supersedes the original, and Plaintiff may 20 not make references to the original complaint. Claims not included in the amended 21 complaint are no longer claims and defendants not named in an amended complaint are no 22 longer defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992). 23 2. Failure to respond in accordance with this order by filing an amended 24 complaint in the time provided will result in the dismissal of this action with 25 prejudice for failure to state a claim for relief without further notice to Plaintiff. 26 3. The Clerk shall include two copies of the court’s complaint with a copy of 1 this order to Plaintiff. 2 IT ISSO ORDERED. 3 || Dated: _ October 1, 2024 fecunihacnan 4 BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

2B 15

16 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Order of Dism. w/LTA P:\PRO-SE\BLF\CR.24\02629Major_dwlta 26 27