Brumfield v. Moore

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 21, 2023
• Docket: 4:22-cv-05369
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CEDRIC JAMAL BRUMFIELD, Case No. 22-cv-05369-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 9 v.

10 DANA D. MOORE, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Plaintiff, an inmate housed at James Crabtree Correctional Center in Helena, Oklahoma, 14 has filed this pro se action. His complaint (Dkt. No. 6) is now before the Court for review under 15 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. 16 DISCUSSION 17 A. Standard of Review 18 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 19 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 21 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 22 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 23 (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See United States v. Qazi, 975 F.3d 24 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2020). 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 26 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not 27 necessary; the statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the 1 While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands more than an unadorned, 2 the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–78 (2009). 3 A pleading that offers only labels and conclusions, or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 4 cause of action, or naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement does not suffice. Id. 5 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 6 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that 7 the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. 8 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 9 B. Complaint 10 The complaint names the following individuals as defendants: Dana E. Moore, identified 11 at the State Registrar of the California Department of Public Health Vital Records during the 12 relevant time period; James Greene, the Alameda County Recorder during the relevant time 13 period; and an unknown Doe physician who signed Plaintiff’s birth certificate. Plaintiff alleges 14 that he is Asiatic of Moorish descent, and not black. Plaintiff alleges that the Doe physician 15 conspired against Plaintiff’s rights when he incorrectly and arbitrarily identified Plaintiff as Black 16 on Plaintiff’s birth certificate, in direct violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242; U.S. Const. Art. I, § 9, 17 Ch. 3 - the Ex Post Facto Clause; and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Plaintiff alleges 18 that the status of Black is a slave status. See generally Dkt. No. 6. 19 This action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a cognizable Section 1983 claim. 20 The Court is unaware of a federal right to having one’s race correctly identified on one’s birth 21 certificate, and Plaintiff has not identified a federal law or constitutional provision that establishes 22 such a right. Moreover, assuming arguendo that the Doe physician incorrectly identified Plaintiff 23 as Black on his birth certificate,1 that would not violate 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242; the Ex Post Facto 24 Clause; or the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. 25

26 1 The Court notes that for live births occurring on or after January 1, 1980, the state of California does not list the race and ethnicity of the child, and lists only the race and ethnicity of the mother 27 and father. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 102425(a); (b)(3) (2005). The complaint does not 1 18 U.S.C. $$ 241 and 242 are criminal statutes that do not give rise to civil liability. Allen 2 v. Gold Country Casino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir. 2006). 3 The Ex Post Facto Clause is inapplicable here. That clause of the United States 4 || Constitution prohibits any statute that (1) punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which 5 was innocent when done; (2) makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its 6 || commission; or (3) deprives one charged with a crime of any defense available according to law at 7 the time when the act was committed. See Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 41-46 (1990). 8 Plaintiff is not challenging any statute, and the complaint does not concern acts done by Plaintiff 9 for which he is retroactively receiving punishment. 10 The Fourteenth Amendment does not apply here. The Fourteenth Amendment prevents 11 states from making or enforcing any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of 12 || citizens of the United States; from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due 5 13 process of law; and from denying persons equal protection of the laws. Plaintiff is not challenging 14 any law and he has not been deprived of life, liberty or property due to state action. 3 15 The Fifteenth Amendment does not apply here. The complaint’s allegations do not a 16 || establish a denial of the right to vote based on Plaintiff's race. 3 17 Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. The dismissal is with 18 || prejudice because amendment would be futile. Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Pub., 512 F.3d 19 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008) (futility of amendment is basis for denial of leave to amend). 20 CONCLUSION 21 The Court DISMISSES this action with prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate all pending 22 || motions as moot, enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff, and close the case. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: 2/21/2023 25 Aaprrd 8 6 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 27 28