Owens v. Wirth

Background

Kenneth Oliver Owens, identified as a pretrial detainee at the San Mateo County Jail, filed the complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that he was threatened by people he described as Hispanic young men, and that Chevron employees in East Palo Alto allowed them to use Chevron facilities to hide and attempt to hurt or harass him. Owens named Mike Wirth, identified in the complaint as Chevron’s CEO, as the only defendant. He requested Chevron video showing similar misconduct during the previous 60 days and $25 million in damages.

Screening standard

The court explained that it must screen prisoner complaints seeking relief from a governmental entity or its officer or employee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must dismiss a complaint, or part of it, if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant immune from such relief. The court also noted that complaints filed without a lawyer must be read generously.

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of federal rights and conduct by a person acting under the authority of state law.

Court’s analysis

The court held that a private individual does not act under the authority of state law, which is an essential part of a § 1983 claim. It further stated that purely private conduct, regardless of how wrongful it may be, is not covered by § 1983. Applying that rule, the court concluded that Owens’s claim for damages against Wirth based on the alleged acts or omissions of Chevron employees, and his request for video to support the claim, was not recognized under § 1983.

The court stated that Owens’s claim should be brought in state court, if at all.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The dismissal was without prejudice to seeking relief in state court.