# Washington v. San Mateo County Board of Supervisors > District Court, N.D. California · April 11, 2022 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10071069 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, N.D. California - **Decided:** April 11, 2022 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10071069 ## Opinion text 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DEANDREA WASHINGTON, Case No. 22-cv-01347-HSG 8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 9 v. 10 SAN MATEO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff, an inmate at Maguire Correctional Facility, has filed a pro se action pursuant to 14 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Her complaint (Dkt. No. 1)1 is now before the Court for review under 28 15 U.S.C. 16 § 1915A. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. 17 DISCUSSION 18 A. Standard of Review 19 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 20 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 22 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 23 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 24 (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See United States v. Qazi, 975 F.3d 25 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2020). 26 27 1 This complaint is identical to the complaints filed in Johnson v. San Mateo County, et al., C No. 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 2 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not 3 necessary; the statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the 4 grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). 5 While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands more than an unadorned, 6 the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–78 (2009). 7 A pleading that offers only labels and conclusions, or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 8 cause of action, or naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement does not suffice. Id. 9 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a 10 right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged 11 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 12 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 13 B. Complaint 14 The complaint names as defendants the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, Dave 15 Pine, Carole Groom, Don Horsely, Warren Slocum, and David Cianepa. The complaint makes the 16 following allegations. On April 4, 2021, the San Mateo County Sheriff’s office stopped all 17 incoming mail to inmates in Maguire Correctional Facility because unidentified inmates, with no 18 connection to Plaintiff, had smuggled in a 13 film strip of suboxone through the mail. Plaintiff is 19 currently unable to receive postal mail. 20 The complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend because the complaint does not 21 identify any actions taken by the named defendants. The complaint identifies a policy by the San 22 Mateo County Sheriff’s Office, but does not link this policy to the named defendants. This 23 dismissal is with leave to amend to address the identified deficiency. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 24 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (district court should grant leave to amend unless pleading could not 25 possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts). 26 In preparing an amended complaint, Plaintiff is cautioned that the Prison Litigation Reform 27 Act requires that inmates exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See 42 U.S.C. § 1 unless prisoner exhausted available administrative remedies before he or she filed suit, even if 2 prisoner fully exhausts while suit is pending); Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 3 2006) (where administrative remedies are not exhausted before prisoner sends complaint to court 4 || it will be dismissed even if exhaustion is completed by time complaint is actually filed). Here, 5 Plaintiff has not indicated whether she exhausted her administrative remedies for her claims before 6 || filing suit. In preparing an amended complaint, Plaintiff should indicate whether she has 7 exhausted administrative remedies. 8 CONCLUSION 9 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows. 10 1. The Court DISMISSES the complaint with leave to amend. Within twenty-eight 11 (28) days of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint that addresses the 12 || identified deficiencies. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number 5 13 || used in this order, Case No. C 22-01347 HSG (PR) and the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” 14 || on the first page. If using the court form complaint, Plaintiff must answer all the questions on the 3 15 form in order for the action to proceed. An amended complaint completely replaces the previous 16 || complaints. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 925 (9th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, 3 17 Plaintiff must include in her amended complaint all the claims she wishes to present and all of the 18 defendants she wishes to sue, and may not incorporate material from the prior complaint by 19 || reference. Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order in the time provided 20 || will result in dismissal of this action without further notice to Plaintiff. The Clerk shall include 21 two copies of the court’s complaint form with a copy of this order to Plaintiff. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: 4/11/2022 24 7 Maepuread 3B. Md, □□□ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10071069. Public record. Not legal advice.