1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ISMAEL VALDEZ, Case No. 24-cv-09172-JST

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9

10 CORONER, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff, an inmate at Santa Cruz County Jail, has filed a pro se action pursuant to 42

. Now before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A is Plaintiff’s 15 complaint, ECF No. 1. 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 grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007) (citations omitted). 2 While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands more than an unadorned, 3 the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

, 677–78 (2009). 4 A pleading that offers only labels and conclusions, or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 5 cause of action, or naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement does not suffice.

6 To state a claim under

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

(1988). 10 B. Dismissal Without Prejudice 11 In the caption of the form complaint, the complaint names as defendants Sheriff Coroner, 12 Santa Cruz County Deputy, jail official Santillian and Mr. Garcia. The complaint is extremely 13 hard to read. The cramped, small handwriting is nearly illegible in many parts. At best, the Court 14 can ascertain that deputy Santillian flashed a red light at Plaintiff on December 2, 2024; that 15 deputy Garcia spit into Plaintiff’s breakfast on December 3, 2024; and that on December 7, 2024, 16 someone threatened to stab Plaintiff. The complaint does not identify what federal law or 17 constitutional provision was violated by these actions, and the allegations are too conclusory for 18 the Court to ascertain if Plaintiff’s federal rights were violated. 19 Regardless, this action must be DISMISSED because it is clear from the face of the 20 complaint that Plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative remedies. The Prison Litigation 21 Reform Act of 1995,

Stat. 1321 (1996) (“PLRA”), amended

1997e to provide that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42

], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other 24 correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. 25 § 1997e(a). Plaintiff reports that he did not make any attempt to use the prison’s administrative 26 grievance process and instead directly sent a complaint letter to this Court on December 16, 2024, 27 and that he is not required to exhaust his administrative remedies because the Court instructed him 1 Plaintiff on December 19, 2024 (ECF Nos. 3, 4) did not excuse Plaintiff from the PLRA’s 2 || administrative remedies exhaustion requirement. These notices explained to Plaintiff the Court’s 3 administrative requirements for filing an action in this Court. ECF Nos. 3, 4. Even if Plaintiff 4 || meets the Court’s administrative requirements for opening a case in this court, he must still 5 comply with all other requirements for maintaining this action, including but not limited to the 6 || PLRA’s administrative remedies exhaustion requirement. The Court DISMISSES this action for 7 failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The 8 || dismissal is without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a new action when he has exhausted his 9 || administrative remedies. 10 CONCLUSION 11 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice for 12 || failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants and against 13 || Plaintiff. The Clerk is directed to close the case. IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 15 Dated: February 18, 2025 .

16 JON S. TIGA 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28