Case 2:22-cv-05475-DOC-AGR Document 14 Filed 10/13/22 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11

HENRY DESEAN ADAMS, ) NO. CV 22-5475-DOC (AGR)

12 ) Plaintiff, ) 13 ) ORDER (1) DISMISSING v. ) COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO 14 ) AMEND; AND (2) TO SHOW LAYLA HAYNES, et al., ) CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION 15 ) SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED Defendants. ) WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 16 ) FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A ) COURT ORDER TO PAY THE 17 ) INITIAL PARTIAL FILING FEE 18 19 I. 20 PROCEDURAL HISTORY 21 On April 21, 2022, Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 22 pauperis, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the 23 complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 24 which transferred it to this judicial district. 25 On August 16, 2022, this Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed 26 without prepayment of filing fees and assessed an initial partial filing fee of 27 $148.77 to be paid within 30 days. The deadline passed on September 15, 2022. 28 (Dkt. No. 13.) The court has not received payment. In addition, the Court screens the complaint to determine whether it fails to Case 2:22-cv-05475-DOC-AGR Document 14 Filed 10/13/22 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #:7

1 state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A. 2 The Court’s screening is governed by the following standards. To survive 3 dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 4 ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 5 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted). “A claim has facial plausibility when the 6 plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 7 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility 8 standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a 9 sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. (citations omitted). 10 A pro se complaint is to be liberally construed. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 11 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). Before dismissing a pro se civil rights complaint 12 for failure to state a claim, the plaintiff should be given a statement of the 13 complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to cure them unless it is clear the 14 deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 15 1135-36 (9th Cir. 1987). Nevertheless, “[under Ninth Circuit case law, district 16 courts are only required to grant leave to amend if a complaint can possibly be 17 saved. Courts are not required to grant leave to amend if a complaint lacks merit 18 entirely.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 19

II.

20

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT .

21 Plaintiff is incarcerated at California Men’s Colony (“CMC”). (Dkt. No. 1 at 22 1.) Defendants are CMC correctional officers A. Monreno and A. Dolida, and 23 private individuals Layla Haynes and Yolanda Adams. (Id. at 2-3.) The alleged 24 civil rights violations involve identity theft, fraud and embezzlement, and were 25 committed outside of prison. (Id. at 2.) 26 In September 2016, when Plaintiff was already incarcerated, he inherited a 27 large sum of money. (Id.) Defendants Haynes and Adams, who were living at 28 2 Case 2:22-cv-05475-DOC-AGR Document 14 Filed 10/13/22 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #:8

1 Plaintiff’s prior address in Richmond, California, had access to his financial and 2 identifying information. They used his identity to purchase property, vehicles and 3 other items without his consent. (Id. at 3.) Haynes and Adams agreed to repay 4 the money to Plaintiff, but they have not done so. Instead, Haynes and Adams 5 used Plaintiff’s identity to help Defendants Monreno and Dolida purchase real 6 estate in San Jose, Antioch and Santa Cruz, and obtain vehicle leases. (Id. at 3- 7 4.) Plaintiff needs the money for medical and legal expenses. (Id. at 3.) 8 Plaintiff requests reimbursement of his financial losses, an additional $10 9 million in damages, and civil commitment for Defendants Monreno and Dolida. 10 (Id. at 4.) 11 III. 12 FAILURE TO PAY INITIAL PARTIAL FILING FEE 13 Plaintiff failed to pay the initial partial filing fee of $148.77 by the court- 14 ordered deadline on September 15, 2022. The court is authorized to collect this 15 amount “when funds exist.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 16 Plaintiff will be ordered to show cause why this action should not be 17 dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order to pay the 18 initial partial filing fee. See Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 850-51 (9th Cir. 19 2002). 20 IV. 21 SCREENING 22 “To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right 23 secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that 24 the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state 25 law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 26 Defendants Haynes and Adams are private parties. (Dkt. No. 1 at 2.) 27 Private parties do not generally act under color of state law. Price v. State of 28 Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 707-08 (9th Cir. 1991). Indeed, the law presumes that 3 Case 2:22-cv-05475-DOC-AGR Document 14 Filed 10/13/22 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #:9

1 conduct by private actors is not state action. Florer v. Congregation Pidyon 2 Shevuyim, N.A., 639 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir. 2011). 3 Private parties can act under color of state law if they conspire with state 4 officials, engage in joint activity with state officials, become so closely related to 5 the State that their actions can be deemed to be those of the State itself, or 6 perform public functions. Price, 939 F.2d at 708. None of these is pleaded here. 7 Rather, the complaint alleges purely private conduct by all four Defendants, 8 including correctional officers Monreno and Dolida. Plaintiff alleges that 9 Defendants committed identity theft, fraud and embezzlement against him and 10 purchased real estate and other property with his inheritance. His factual 11 allegations do not show any connection between the wrongful acts allegedly 12 committed by Defendants Monreno and Dolida, and their positions as correctional 13 officers at CMC. Compare McDade v. West, 223 F.3d 1135, 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 14 2000) (district attorney’s office employee acted under color of state law when she 15 accessed database by virtue of her official position and used it to locate 16 confidential location of her husband’s ex-wife at domestic violence shelter). 17 Indeed, Plaintiff attributes the fraud to private parties Haynes and Adams, who 18 had access to his financial and identifying information by virtue of living in his 19 house and (for unknown reasons) used his money to benefit Defendants 20 Monreno and Dolida as well as themselves. (Dkt. No. 1. at 3-4.) 21 Section 1983 “does not federalize all torts or other deprivations of rights 22 committed by a person who is a law enforcement officer or other government 23 agent.” Naffe v. Frey, 789 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation 24 marks and citation omitted). “[A] government employee does not act under color 25 of state law when he pursues private goals via private actions.” Id. at 1037. 26 Under the factual allegations of the complaint, Defendants Monreno and 27 Dolida did not act under color of state law when they participated in the alleged 28 identity theft and fraud against Plaintiff. See id. at 1034-39 (deputy district 4 Case 2:22-cv-05475-DOC-AGR Document 14 Filed 10/13/22 Page 5 of 7 Page ID #:10

1 attorney who denigrated plaintiff in his personal blog and damaged her credit 2 history by publishing her social security number did not act under color of state 3 law); Van Ort v. Estate of Stanewich, 92 F.3d 831, 835 (9th Cir. 1996) (off-duty 4 police officer who returned to plaintiffs’ home where he had seen contents of safe 5 during on-duty search and robbed and assaulted plaintiffs was not acting under 6 color of state law). 7 It follows that the private parties, Defendants Haynes and Adams, did not 8 act under color of state law when they allegedly “helped” Defendants Monreno 9 and Dolida obtain real estate and other property with Plaintiff’s money. Hayes 10 and Adams clearly did not act under color of state law when they used Plaintiff’s 11 inheritance for their own benefit. 12 “Purely private conduct, no matter how wrongful,” is not covered under 13 Section 1983. Ouzts v. Maryland Nat'l Ins. Co., 505 F.2d 547, 550 (9th Cir. 14 1974). There is no right to be free from the infliction of constitutional deprivations 15 by private individuals. Van Ort, 92 F.3d at 835; see generally DeShaney v. 16 Winnebago Cy. Dep't of Social Serv., 489 U.S. 189, 196 (1989) (Fourteenth 17 Amendment's “purpose was to protect the people from the State, not to ensure 18 that the State protected them from each other”). 19 Plaintiff, therefore, has not alleged a Section 1983 claim against any of the 20 four Defendants. 21 V. 22 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ADD DEFENDANTS 23 On July 1, 2022, before the case was transferred to the Central District, 24 Plaintiff filed a motion to add 12 individuals as additional defendants: Rachel 25 Sawczuk, Victoria Lenihan, J. Best, Kozar, Nicole Crawford, S. Lund, Mary Bold, 26 M. Drake, Avery, Danny Samuels, Duke and M. Buffaloe. (Dkt. No. 9.) Plaintiff 27 states that they participated in the identity theft, real estate fraud, and 28 embezzlement alleged in the complaint. (Id. at 1.) In the attachment to the 5 Case 2:22-cv-05475-DOC-AGR Document 14 Filed 10/13/22 Page 6 of 7 Page ID #:11

1 motion purporting to be a summons, Plaintiff describes some of these individuals 2 as state officials at CMC or at Martinez Detention Facility in Contra Costa County, 3 which is in the Northern District of California. (Dkt. No. 9-1); 28 U.S.C. § 84(a). 4 Any Section 1983 claims Plaintiff wishes to assert against these individuals 5 fail for the same reason as his claims against the four Defendants. Plaintiff 6 alleges purely private conduct which cannot support a Section 1983 claim. 7 In light of the dismissal of the Complaint with leave to amend, Plaintiff’s 8 request is denied as moot. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue claims against these 9 individuals and is able to cure the above-identified defects, he can include them 10 his First Amended Complaint, with particularized supporting allegations as to 11 each. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). 12 V. 13 ORDER 14 For the reasons discussed above, the Court DISMISSES the complaint with 15 leave to amend. 16 Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the entry date of this Order to file a First 17 Amended Complaint that corrects the deficiencies described above. Failure to file 18 a timely amended complaint that corrects the deficiencies will result in dismissal 19 of the action on the merits or for failure to prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 20 If Plaintiff chooses to file a First Amended Complaint, it must bear the 21 docket number assigned to this case, be labeled “First Amended Complaint,” and 22 be complete in and of itself without reference to the prior complaints, attachments, 23 pleadings or other documents. 24 The Clerk is DIRECTED to provide Plaintiff with a blank Central District of 25 California civil rights complaint form. Plaintiff must use a Central District civil 26 rights complaint form. 27 In addition, within 30 days after entry of this Order, Plaintiff is ORDERED to 28 show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice 6 ase 2:22-cv-05475-DOC-AGR Document 14 Filed 10/13/22 Page 7of7 Page ID #:12

1 for failure to pay the initial partial filing fee of $148.77 by the court-ordered 2 deadline of September 15, 2022, or failure to prosecute. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. Ab toi 6 DATED: October 13, 2022 a Coot United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28