1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROMEO RIGHTEOUS HICKS, Case No. EDCV 21-0063 AB (RAO)

12 Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE

13 v. SUMMARY DISMISSAL 14 RAVEN GRETCHEN LEE, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On January 12, 2021, Plaintiff Romeo Righteous Hicks (“Plaintiff”), a 18 prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint (“Complaint”). Compl., 19 Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee or file a request to proceed in forma 20 pauperis. See Dkt. No. 2. For the following reasons, the Complaint is dismissed 21 without leave to amend. 22 Plaintiff sues his mother, Raven Gretchen Lee (“Defendant Lee”), pursuant 23 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Compl. at 3. The Complaint sets forth a narrative of past 24 events between Plaintiff and his mother, dating back to Plaintiff’s childhood. 25 Section 1983 provides, in part, that: 26 Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, 27 regulation, custom, or usage, of any State …, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or 28 1 other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured 2 by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party 3 injured in an action at law[.] 4 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim pursuant to Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege 5 that the defendant, acting under color of state law, caused a deprivation of the 6 plaintiff’s federal rights. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 7 The Complaint names as the sole defendant Plaintiff’s mother and is devoid 8 of any facts alleging that Defendant Lee acted “under color of state law.” Compl. at 9 1, 3. “[T]he under-color-of-state-law element of § 1983 excludes from its reach 10 ‘merely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful’ . . . .” Am. 11 Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 49-50 (1999) (quoting Blum v. 12 Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1002 (1982)); see also Ouzts v. Maryland Nat’l Ins. Co., 13 505 F.2d 547, 550 (9th Cir. 1974) (en banc) (“[P]urely private conduct, no matter 14 how wrongful, is not within the protective orbit of section 1983.”)). Absent any 15 allegations that Defendant Lee was a state actor, Plaintiff fails to allege a 16 cognizable Section 1983 claim. See Price v. Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 70708 (9th Cir. 17 1991) (as amended) (“[P]rivate parties are not generally acting under color of state 18 law, and we have stated that ‘[c]onclusory allegations, unsupported by facts, [will 19 be] rejected as insufficient to state a claim under the Civil Rights Act.’”) (citation 20 omitted). 21 Because the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff would be unable to allege any 22 facts against Defendant Lee based upon the allegations in the Complaint, 23 amendment would be futile. See Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 24 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013) (“A district court may deny leave to amend when 25 amendment would be futile.”). 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT the Complaint is 2 | DISMISSED. 3 4 || DATED: January 19, 2021 \ ° ANDREBIROTTEJR. □□□ 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28