The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 NICACIO FLORES VILLALOBOS, Case No. 25-cv-02611-JST
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
v.
9
10 STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Defendant.
11
12
13 Plaintiff has filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His
14 complaint (ECF No. 1) is now before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff has
15 been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order.
16 DISCUSSION
17 I. Standard of Review
18 A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner
19 seeks redress from a governmental entity, or from an officer or an employee of a governmental
20 entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and
21 dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be
22 granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C.
23 § 1915A(b) (1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police
24 Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the
26 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not
27 necessary; the statement need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the
1 “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more
2 than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
3 do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”
4 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must
5 proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570.
6 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a
7 right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated; and (2) that the
8 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S.
9 42, 48 (1988).
10 II. Complaint
11 In the caption, the complaint names as the sole defendant the State of California
12 Government Claim Department of General Services. Plaintiff requests that this case be
13 consolidated with C No. 24-cv-02184 JST, and with his government claim cases on file with the
14 State of California. ECF No. 1 at 2. The statement of claim is as follows:
15 Order of Dismissal on January 8, 2025
Pro se civil rights action.
16 Pro se civil rights action.
Release – Open any all gag orders to and from Nicacio Flores Villalobas from
17 counties of San Benito County, Monterey County & military. Date of January 8, 2025.
Case #24-CV-02184 JST was amended and sent to by mail to Clerk, US District Court for
18 the Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Ave. Box 36060, San Francisco CA
94102.
19 Since then State of California has restricted and discontinued governmental
programs of welfare state hearing Case # SHN-105101234 has reached to an appeals court
20 level for Case # 2020948 to consider Title 8 the Organization and Government of Court §
71615, Military Plaintiff. Super Citizen Title, Laws of Land violations; § 17202. Specific
21 or preventative relief. Pro bono service, all specified statements/motions without holding a
competency hearing, Case #24-cv-02184 JST. Stay on amended leave filing on same date
22 of judgment. All requested relief from all complaints to be enforced by existing law.
23 ECF No. 1 at 3. The complaint requests the following relief: “Just compensation; grant passports
24 for personal properties pertaining to Nicacio Flores Villalobos, one to (illegible) from serving in
25 military, immediate access to own finances/accounts including trust & allowances, responsibility
26 servitude to be complied with.” ECF No. 1 at 3.
27 / / /
1 Il. Dismissal with Prejudice
2 The Court dismisses the complaint because it does not allege a violation of federal law or
3 the federal constitution, which is required to bring an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and for
4 federal question jurisdiction in this action. West, 487 U.S. at 48; 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Dismissal is
5 with prejudice because amendment would be futile. Plumeau v. Sch. Dist. #40, Cty of Yamhill,
6 130 F.3d 432, 439 (9th Cir. 1997) (denial of leave to amend appropriate where further amendment
7 would be futile).
8 To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking relief related to Case No. 24-cv-02184-JST,
9 Villalobos v. Barton, et al., Plaintiff must file his request for relief in that case, not file a new case
10 and request consolidation. To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking relief related to his state tort
11 claims filed with the California Government Claims Board, there is no indication that such claims
12 arise under federal law and therefore they do not state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
13 CONCLUSION
14 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES the complaint with prejudice. Judgment
3 15 is entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. The Clerk shall close the case.
a 16 IT IS SO ORDERED.
5 17 || Dated: July 9, 2025 °
JON S. TIGA
19 United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28