Jasmine Ballesteros Moreno v. Monterey County

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: July 8, 2026
• Docket: 3:26-cv-03424
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JASMINE BALLESTEROS MORENO, Case No. 26-cv-03424-LJC

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

10 MONTEREY COUNTY, Defendant. 11

12 13 Jasmine Moreno, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights 14 complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 about her prior jail detention in Monterey County. She has 15 filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which is granted in a separate order. The 16 court now addresses the claims asserted in Moreno’s complaint. 17 DISCUSSION 18 I. Standard of Review 19 A federal court must screen any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a 20 governmental entity, or officer or employee of a governmental entity, to dismiss any claims that: 21 (1) are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or 22 (3) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 23 Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 24 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 25 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 26 right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged 27 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 1 Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the 2 plaintiff can show that the defendant’s actions actually and proximately caused the deprivation of 3 a federally protected right. Lemire v. California Dep’t of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 726 F.3d 4 1062, 1074 (9th Cir. 2013); Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). A person deprives 5 another of a constitutional right within the meaning of Section 1983 if he does an affirmative act, 6 participates in another’s affirmative act or fails to perform an act which he is legally required to 7 do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains. Id. at 633. 8 II. Moreno’s Allegations 9 Moreno alleges that she was incarcerated in Monterey County Jail from December 2, 2025 10 to January 28, 2026, during which time she did not receive her medication, leading to a mental 11 breakdown. The mental health department did not help her until her last week at the jail. Usually 12 she gets her medication the same day she goes to the jail, where she has been in and out for the last 13 ten years. She signed papers for various pharmacies in Monterey County but was rejected by them. 14 Moreno “would like the Monterey County Jail to be more helpful” and to know why she was 15 rejected and discriminated against. 16 Moreno has only named Monterey County as a defendant. Local governments, including 17 counties, are only subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 where official policy or custom 18 causes a constitutional violation. See Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). 19 Moreno has not alleged a county policy or custom that caused a constitutional violation. She may 20 file an amended complaint to name a specific individual defendant whom she alleges is 21 responsible for denying her medication at the jail. If she chooses to file an amended complaint, she 22 should also explain what relief she is seeking. Her request to require the jail to be more helpful is 23 not something she can pursue in court, because she is no longer incarcerated at the jail, making it 24 moot unless she can demonstrate that after she serves her prison sentence she is likely to return to 25 the Monterey County Jail and experience the same treatment again. In addition, if she chooses to 26 file an amended complaint, Moreno should explain what medication she needed that she did not 27 receive and why it led to a mental breakdown. 1 CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing, the court orders as follows: 3 1. Even liberally construed, the allegations do not give rise to any federal claims against 4 || any defendants. These claims are dismissed with leave to amend to remedy the deficiencies noted 5 above. 6 2. If Moreno wishes to file a First Amended Complaint (FAC), she must do so within 7 || twenty-eight days from the date of this order. The FAC must include the caption and civil case 8 || number used in this Order and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. 9 || Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, Moreno must include 10 || iit all the allegations she wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 11 1992). She may not incorporate material from his original complaint or petition by reference. 12 || Failure to amend within the designated time will result in the dismissal of this case with prejudice. 13 3. It is Moreno’s responsibility to prosecute this case. She must keep the court informed of 14 || any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of Change of 2 15 || Address,” and must comply with the court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result a 16 || in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

17 || 41(b). Z 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: July 8, 2026 20

L . CIS OS 22 Unitéd States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28