Maury v. Smith

N.D. California

Maury v. Smith

DecidedJanuary 2, 2025

Docket4:24-cv-07093

StatusUnknown

This text of Maury v. Smith (Maury v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maury v. Smith, (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ROBERT E. MAURY, Case No. 24-cv-07093-JSW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9

10 SMITH, et al., Defendants. 11

12 Plaintiff, an inmate in Pelican Bay State Prison proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights 13 case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Warden and unidentified “mailroom staff.” The 14 complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint and a second 15 amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 9, 10.) 16 The amended complaints suffer from the same problem as the original complaint because 17 they do not allege what the individual staff members did or failed to do “that caused the alleged 18 interference with, confiscation of, and/or other mishandling of Plaintiff’s legal mail.” (ECF No. 8 19 at 2.) See Lemire v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 726 F.3d 1062, 1085 (9th Cir. 20 2013) (liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the plaintiff 21 can show that the defendant’s actions both actually and proximately caused the deprivation of a 22 federally protected right); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (at the 23 pleading stage, "[a] plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an individual 24 was personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights"). Plaintiff lists five “Doe” 25 defendants, but does not allege any actions or omissions particular to any of them that caused a 26 violation of his rights. As Plaintiff has failed to correct the deficiencies in his original complaint, 27 this case is DISMSSED without prejudice to filing a new case in which Plaintiff alleges acts or ] The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: January 2, 2025 ~ a |} 4 / | □ é ( 5 \ i 7 JAFFREY SWWHITE 6 {/ /nited Stayés District Judge

8 9 10 1]

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ROBERT E. MAURY, Case No. 24-cv-07093-JSW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9

10 SMITH, et al., Defendants. 11

12 Plaintiff, an inmate in Pelican Bay State Prison proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights 13 case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Warden and unidentified “mailroom staff.” The 14 complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint and a second 15 amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 9, 10.) 16 The amended complaints suffer from the same problem as the original complaint because 17 they do not allege what the individual staff members did or failed to do “that caused the alleged 18 interference with, confiscation of, and/or other mishandling of Plaintiff’s legal mail.” (ECF No. 8 19 at 2.) See Lemire v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 726 F.3d 1062, 1085 (9th Cir. 20 2013) (liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the plaintiff 21 can show that the defendant’s actions both actually and proximately caused the deprivation of a 22 federally protected right); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (at the 23 pleading stage, "[a] plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an individual 24 was personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights"). Plaintiff lists five “Doe” 25 defendants, but does not allege any actions or omissions particular to any of them that caused a 26 violation of his rights. As Plaintiff has failed to correct the deficiencies in his original complaint, 27 this case is DISMSSED without prejudice to filing a new case in which Plaintiff alleges acts or ] The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: January 2, 2025 ~ a |} 4 / | □ é ( 5 \ i 7 JAFFREY SWWHITE 6 {/ /nited Stayés District Judge

8 9 10 1]

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Maury v. Smith, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maury-v-smith-cand-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack