Card v. Oakland Police Department

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: October 3, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00986
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CHRISTOPHER LEE CARD, Case No. 24-cv-00986-AMO (PR)

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT 9 v. FURTHER LEAVE TO AMEND

10 NATE GARTRELL, et al., Defendants. 11

12 I. INTRODUCTION 13 Plaintiff Christopher Lee Card, who is currently in custody at the Santa Rita Jail (“SRJ”), 14 filed the instant civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, representing himself, alleging 15 constitutional violations prior to his confinement at SRJ. 16 Upon initial review, the Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend so that Card 17 could attempt to cure several deficiencies. See Dkt. 12. Plaintiff then filed several documents 18 entitled, “Amended Complaint.” Dkts. 9, 10, 11. The Court considers the most recently filed 19 amended complaint as the operative complaint, in which he seeks monetary relief. Dkt. 11. It is 20 now before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Id. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the 21 Court must screen most prisoner civil actions to, among other things, identify cognizable claims 22 and dismiss claims that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 23 II. DISCUSSION 24 A. Standard of Review 25 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 26 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 27 § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 1 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 2 Pleadings submitted by self-represented plaintiffs must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. 3 Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 4 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 5 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that 6 the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. 7 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 8 B. The Amended Complaint 9 The amended complaint, like the original complaint, alleges a defamation claim against 10 Defendants “The Mercury News” and Nate Gartrell, who Card alleges is a “court reporter [with] 11 the Mercury News.” Dkt. 11 at 2. Card against fails to state a cognizable federal civil rights claim 12 under section 1983 because he does not allege that these defendants were acting under color of 13 state law. A person acts under color of state law if he “exercise[s] power possessed by virtue of 14 state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state 15 law.” West, 487 U.S. at 49 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). A private individual 16 generally does not act under color of state law. See Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980). 17 Specifically, “the under-color-of-state-law element of § 1983 excludes from its reach merely 18 private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful.” Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 19 526 U.S. 40, 50 (1999) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Simply put: there is no right to be 20 free from the infliction of constitutional deprivations by private individuals. See Van Ort v. Est. of 21 Stanewich, 92 F.3d 831, 835 (9th Cir. 1996). Action taken by private individuals or organizations 22 may be under color of state law “if, though only if, there is such a close nexus between the State 23 and the challenged action that seemingly private behavior may be fairly treated as that of the State 24 itself.” Brentwood Acad. v. Tennessee Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 121 S. Ct. 924, 930 (2001) 25 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court has found state action when a challenged 26 activity results from the State’s exercise of coercive power; when the State provides significant 27 encouragement for the activity; or when a private actor operates as a willful participant in joint 1 Here, Card alleges no facts in his amended complaint suggesting that the conduct of either 2 || “The Mercury News,” which is a private organization, or Mr. Gartrell, a private actor, could fairly 3 be treated as conduct of the State itself. See Dkt. 11. Because purely private conduct, no matter 4 how wrongful, is not covered under section 1983, see Van Ort, 92 F.3d at 835, Defendants are not 5 state actors and are not amenable to suit under section 1983. Accordingly, Card’s claims against 6 “The Mercury News” and Mr. Gartrell are DISMISSED without further leave to amend. 7 || I. CONCLUSION 8 For the foregoing reasons, the claims against Defendants are not cognizable and this action 9 is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 10 Further, this Court CERTIFIES that any in forma paupeis (“IFP”’) appeal from this Order 11 would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See Coppedge v. United 12 States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550 (9th Cir. 1977) (indigent 13 appellant is permitted to proceed IFP on appeal only if appeal would not be frivolous). 14 The Clerk of the Court shall close the file. 3 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: October 3, 2025

18 coh / ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28