Alexander-Campos v. Perez

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Alexander-Campos v. Perez

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ROBERT J. ALEXANDER-CAMPOS, Case No. 25-cv-00284-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 9 v.

10 J. PEREZ, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Plaintiff, an inmate currently housed at Alameda County Jail, has filed this pro se civil 14 rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983

. His complaint (Dkt. No. 10) is now before the Court 15 for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff has granted leave to proceed in forma 16 pauperis in a separate 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,

975 F.3d 25

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,

551 U.S. 89, 93

(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,

556 U.S. 662

, 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.

Id.

6 To state a claim under

42 U.S.C. § 1983

, 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,

487 U.S. 42, 48

(1988). 10 B. Complaint 11 The complaint names as defendants correctional officers Perez and Bruce and the 12 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The complaint makes the following 13 allegations. In late 2025, Plaintiff had given Soledad State Prison legal mail staff a change of 14 address notice to be sent in for filing, indicating that he would be paroled on December 30, 2025, 15 and could be reached thereafter at 2096 Eilene, Pleasanton, California. This change of address 16 notice did not reach the court. On June 28, 2006, a magistrate judge issued findings and 17 recommendations that were served on Plaintiff. However, Plaintiff never received this court order 18 because it was sent to his former address at Soledad State Prison, and not the address listed in his 19 notice. The case was then dismissed without prejudice and judgment entered in favor of 20 Defendants. The complaint requests the following relief. Plaintiff requests that the Ninth 21 Circuit’s denial of summary judgment in qualified immunity in C No. 04-16209 be upheld. See 22 generally Dkt. No. 1. 23 The Court DISMISSES the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim under 42

24 U.S.C. § 1983

. Plaintiff has not alleged a violation of either federal law or the federal Constitution 25 committed by a person acting under the color of state law, as is necessary to state a claim under 42

26 U.S.C. § 1983

. See West,

487 U.S. at 48

. Plaintiff appears to be seeking relief in the case he filed 27 in the Eastern District of California, C No. 1:03-cv-05249 OWW LJO, Alexander v. Perez, et al., 1 cannot grant relief in other cases. Plaintiff should file his request for relief in the cases at issue. 2 CONCLUSION 3 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES this action for failure to state a claim 4 under

42 U.S.C. § 1983

. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. The 5 Clerk shall close the case. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 || Dated: 3/3/2025

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. □ 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12

13

15

16

17

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

Reference

Status
Unknown