Alexander v. Target Incorporated

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: December 4, 2019
• Docket: 4:19-cv-07492
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ROBERT J. ALEXANDER, Case No. 19-cv-07492-PJH

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 9 v. TO AMEND

10 TARGET INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff, a detainee, proceeds with a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. 14 § 1983. 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. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and 20 dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief 21 may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 22 relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. 23 Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement 25 of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not 26 necessary; the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim 27 is and the grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) 1 factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment] 2 to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the 3 elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to 4 raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 5 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state 6 a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme 7 Court has recently explained the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal 8 conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual 9 allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their 10 veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” 11 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 12 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 13 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 14 violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the 15 color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 16 LEGAL CLAIMS 17 Plaintiff alleges that his rights were violated when he was detained at a Target 18 retail store. 19 A private individual does not act under color of state law, an essential element of a 20 § 1983 action. See Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980). Purely private conduct, 21 no matter how wrongful, is not covered under § 1983. See Ouzts v. Maryland Nat'l Ins. 22 Co., 505 F.2d 547, 550 (9th Cir. 1974). Simply put: There is no right to be free from the 23 infliction of constitutional deprivations by private individuals. See Van Ort v. Estate of 24 Stanewich, 92 F.3d 831, 835 (9th Cir. 1996). 25 Action taken by private individuals or organizations may be under color of state 26 law “if, though only if, there is such a close nexus between the State and the challenged 27 action that seemingly private behavior may be fairly treated as that of the State itself. 1 simplicity. . . . [N]o one fact can function as a necessary condition across the board for 2 finding state action; nor is any set of circumstances absolutely sufficient, for there may be 3 some countervailing reason against attributing activity to the government.” Brentwood 4 Academy v. Tennessee Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 531 U.S. 288, 295-96 (2001) 5 (internal quotation marks omitted). “Even facts that suffice to show public action (or, 6 standing alone, would require such a finding) may be outweighed in the name of some 7 value at odds with finding public accountability in the circumstances.” See id. at 303. 8 Plaintiff alleges that loss prevention staff at a Target retail store tackled him and 9 then detained him without reading him is Miranda rights, they handcuffed him, denied him 10 an attorney and access to his medication and a restroom. As currently plead, plaintiff 11 fails to state a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants were not state 12 actors, rather they were employees at a retail store and plaintiff has not shown they were 13 acting under color of state law. While plaintiff could seek relief in state court, he has not 14 set forth a claim for relief in this court. Plaintiff has also named the police department as 15 a defendant but there are no allegations against any individual officer.1 The complaint is 16 dismissed with leave to amend to provide more information and state a federal claim. 17 CONCLUSION 18 1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the 19 standards set forth above. The amended complaint must be filed no later than January 20 6, 2020 and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the 21 words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims he 22 wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may 23 24

25 1 Plaintiff is also informed that in order to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose 26 unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, 27 expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make 1 not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to file amended 2 complaint may result in dismissal of this action. 3 2. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the 4 court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed 5 “Notice of Change of Address,” and must comply with the court's orders in a timely 6 fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute 7 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: December 4, 2019 10 11 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27