Christopher Maurice McDowell v. CVS Store Staff

C.D. California

Christopher Maurice McDowell v. CVS Store Staff

DecidedApril 1, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-02646

StatusUnknown

This text of Christopher Maurice McDowell v. CVS Store Staff (Christopher Maurice McDowell v. CVS Store Staff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Christopher Maurice McDowell v. CVS Store Staff, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER MAURICE Case No. 2:25-cv-02646-SB-AJR MCDOWELL, Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v.

CVS STORE STAFF, Defendants.

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint raising a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the “staff” of a CVS store in Los Angeles. Dkt. No. 1. Because Plaintiff has requested to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), the Court must screen his complaint to determine if he fails to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff’s allegation that an unidentified CVS staff member improperly took $203.25 from his EBT account fails to state a § 1983 claim.1 See Price v. State of Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 707–08 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting that state action is required for a § 1983 claim). There is no allegation or any suggestion that the CVS employee was acting under color of state law.2 In these circumstances, it is 1 The standard for determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) is the same as the standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebrard v. Nofziger, 90 F.4th 1000, 1007 (9th Cir. 2024). 2 Moreover, his allegation that the funds were taken unlawfully is conclusory. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible “absolutely clear” that amendment would be futile. Rosati v. Igbinoso, 791 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2015). Leave to amend is therefore denied.

Accordingly, the action is dismissed without prejudice.

Date: April 1, 2025 ___________________________ Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.

United States District Judge

on its face.”) (cleaned up); id. (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER MAURICE Case No. 2:25-cv-02646-SB-AJR MCDOWELL, Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v.

CVS STORE STAFF, Defendants.

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint raising a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the “staff” of a CVS store in Los Angeles. Dkt. No. 1. Because Plaintiff has requested to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), the Court must screen his complaint to determine if he fails to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff’s allegation that an unidentified CVS staff member improperly took $203.25 from his EBT account fails to state a § 1983 claim.1 See Price v. State of Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 707–08 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting that state action is required for a § 1983 claim). There is no allegation or any suggestion that the CVS employee was acting under color of state law.2 In these circumstances, it is 1 The standard for determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) is the same as the standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebrard v. Nofziger, 90 F.4th 1000, 1007 (9th Cir. 2024). 2 Moreover, his allegation that the funds were taken unlawfully is conclusory. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible “absolutely clear” that amendment would be futile. Rosati v. Igbinoso, 791 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2015). Leave to amend is therefore denied.

Accordingly, the action is dismissed without prejudice.

Date: April 1, 2025 ___________________________ Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.

United States District Judge

on its face.”) (cleaned up); id. (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Christopher Maurice McDowell v. CVS Store Staff, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christopher-maurice-mcdowell-v-cvs-store-staff-cacd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack