The opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4 ABDUL RAHIM SABIR, Case No. 25-cv-09032-WHO (PR)
Plaintiff,
5
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
v.
6 WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
7 JOE BIDEN, et al.,
Defendants.
8
9
10 INTRODUCTION
11 Plaintiff Abdul Rahim Sabir claims that unnamed persons at the San Francisco
12 Sheriff’s Office violated his constitutional rights in various ways. His 42 U.S.C. § 1983
13 complaint containing these allegations is now before me for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
14 § 1915A(a).
15 The complaint fails to state any claim for relief. Sabir has not provided sufficient
16 factual information, such as the date on which the alleged wrongs occurred, the names and
17 official roles of the persons who committed these acts (he names Joe Biden but offers only
18 conclusory allegations), and a description of what each person said and did. He must
19 allege specific facts tying a specific person to the exact wrong. Accordingly, the complaint
20 is DISMISSED with leave to file an amended complaint on or before March 16, 2026.
21 Failure to file a proper amended complaint by March 16, 2026, may result in dismissal of
22 this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
23 Sabir has filed several lawsuits. Many of them are subject to dismissal because
24 mail sent by the Court to him has been returned as undeliverable, Sabir having failed to
25 update his address to his current one in Sacramento. Whenever his address changes, Sabir
26 must file a change of address notice in each of his cases, or they likely will be dismissed
27 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
1
Abdul Rahim Sabir II
2 # 709192
Sacramento Behavioral Healthcare Hospital
3 1400 Expo Parkway
Sacramento, CA 95815
4
STANDARD OF REVIEW
5
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a
6
prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a
7
governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any
8
cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim
9
upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
10
from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed.
11
See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
12
A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
13
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
14
(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial
15
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
16
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting
17
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal
18
conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably
19
be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55
20
(9th Cir. 1994).
21
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential
22
elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was
23
violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the
24
color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
25
DISCUSSION
26
Sabir alleges that while at the San Francisco County jail he has been the target of
27
1 defamation by Joe Biden, and is being held illegally. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 2-3.) These
2 allegations fail to state a claim for relief.
3 “A person deprives another ‘of a constitutional right,’ within the meaning of section
4 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to
5 perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which [the
6 plaintiff complains].” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Johnson
7 v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). The inquiry into causation is individualized
8 and focuses on the duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or
9 omissions are alleged to have caused a constitutional deprivation. Id. Defendants cannot
10 be held liable for a constitutional violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless they were
11 integral participants in the unlawful conduct. Keates v. Koile, 883 F.3d 1228, 1241 (9th
12 Cir. 2018).
13 In addition, supervisory defendants are not responsible simply because they are
14 supervisors. There is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983. Taylor v. List, 880
15 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). It is not enough that the supervisor merely has a
16 supervisory relationship over the defendants; the plaintiff must show that the supervisor
17 “participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to
18 prevent them.” Id. Furthermore, supervisor defendants are entitled to qualified immunity
19 where the allegations against them are simply “bald” or “conclusory” because such
20 allegations do not “plausibly” establish the supervisors’ personal involvement in their
21 subordinates’ constitutional wrong. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675-82.
22 Sabir has not provided sufficient factual information to state a claim, such as the
23 date on which these events occurred, the names and official roles of the persons who
24 committed these acts (he names Joe Biden and Adam Burke, but offers only conclusory
25 allegations against Biden and none at all regarding Burke), and specific facts about what
26 each person said and did. His allegations against fellow prisoners cannot survive as
27 currently articulated either. Prisoners are not state actors and cannot be defendants in a 42
1 || challenged action that seemingly private behavior may be fairly treated as that of the state
2 itself. Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 531 U.S. 288,
3 || 295-96 (2001). There are no specific facts, as opposed to conclusory allegations, showing
4 || any such nexus. Sabir’s naming of San Franciso Sheriffs Office as a defendant without
5 || adequate facts showing liability does not state a claim.
6 The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. In the amended complaint,
7 || Sabir must allege specific facts tying a specific person to the exact wrong.
8 CONCLUSION
9 The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to file a first amended complaint on or
10 || before March 16, 2026. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case
|| number used in this order (25-09032 WHO (PR)) and the words FIRST AMENDED
WL COMPLAINT must be written on the first page. The amended complaint must also appear
E 13 || on this Court’s form, a copy of which will be sent to him. Because an amended complaint
S 14 || completely replaces the previous complaints, plaintiff must include in his first amended
15 || complaint all the claims he wishes to present and all of the defendants he wishes to sue.
16 || See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate
17 || material from the prior complaint by reference. Failure to file a proper amended complaint
18 by March 16, 2026 may result in dismissal of this action under Federal Rule of Civil
19 || Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
20 Sabir has filed several lawsuits. Many of them are subject to dismissal because
21 || mail sent by the Court to him has been returned as undeliverable, Sabir having failed to
22 || update his address to his current one in Sacramento. Whenever his address changes, Sabir
23 || must file a change of address notice in each of his cases, or they likely will be dismissed
24 || under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
25 IT IS SO ORDERED.
26 || Dated: February 4, 2026 UMae
27 IAM H. ORRICK
28 United States District Judge
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27