Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California screened a pro se prisoner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging that a fellow inmate attacked and injured her. The magistrate judge concluded that the fellow inmate was not acting under color of state law and therefore could not be sued under § 1983. The court ordered random assignment of a district judge and recommended dismissal without leave to amend for failure to state a cognizable claim.
Holdings
- A fellow inmate is not a state actor and therefore cannot be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- A district court may deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile, such as when the complaint lacks merit entirely.
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiff's complaint states a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a fellow inmate.
- Whether leave to amend should be granted when the claim fails as a matter of law.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (18)
- Jackson v. Foster, 372 F. App'x 770 (9th Cir. 2010)(cited)
- Chudacoff v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev., 649 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2011)(cited)
- Broam v. Bogan, 320 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2003)(cited)
- Soo Park v. Thompson, 851 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2017)(cited)
- Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (1982)(cited)
- Manuel v. City of Joliet, Ill., 137 S. Ct. 911 (2017)(cited)
- Gettimier v. Burse, 2015 WL 75224 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 6, 2015)(cited)
- Rigano v. Cty. of Sullivan, 486 F. Supp. 2d 244 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)(cited)
- Williams v. Calidonna, 2007 WL 432773 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2007)(cited)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)(cited)
Showing top 10 of 18.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…