Adams v. Head of CNA Financial, Orange County Branch
- James Donato
- 3:21-cv-07987
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Judge Donato dismissed Adams v. Head of CNA Financial for failure to state a civil-rights claim and denied permission to proceed without paying fees.
Rineson C. Adams’s complaint was dismissed without leave to amend, his requests to proceed without paying filing fees were denied, and the case was closed. The opinion does not describe any separate relief imposed on the defendant.
What happened
In Rineson C. Adams v. Head of CNA Financial, Orange County Branch, Adams, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a civil-rights complaint under a federal law known as Section 1983.
Adams alleged that the head of CNA Financial’s Orange County branch seized his companies and business empire before he turned 18. He referred to small-claims cases from 2005 to 2007 and asked the court to review those cases and arrange a transaction to obtain his companies.
The court found the allegations frivolous and insufficient to state a Section 1983 claim. It also noted that Adams was incarcerated and that the alleged events occurred outside this district, so it dismissed the complaint without leave to amend, denied his requests to proceed without paying filing fees, and closed the case. Judge James Donato signed the order.
The detailed version
- Adams v. Head of CNA Financial, Orange County Branch · No. 3:21-cv-07987
- James Donato
- Nov. 4, 2021
Background
Rineson C. Adams, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendant was identified as the head of CNA Financial’s Orange County branch. Adams alleged that this person seized his companies and “empire” before Adams’s eighteenth birthday. Adams also stated that he filed a claim in small-claims court in 2005–2007 and won. He sought review of the small-claims cases and an order arranging a transaction to obtain his companies.
Screening standard
Because Adams was a prisoner seeking relief under Section 1983, the court conducted the required preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court explained that it had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, or sought money from an immune defendant. It also applied the rule that a complaint must provide enough factual matter to make the requested relief plausible. To state a Section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law and conduct by a person acting under color of state law.
Ruling
The court concluded that Adams’s allegations were frivolous and failed to state a claim under Section 1983. The court also noted that Adams was not incarcerated in this district and that the events did not occur here. It determined that no amendment could cure the complaint’s deficiencies and dismissed the action without leave to amend. The court stated that any action Adams sought to bring apart from Section 1983 should be filed in the appropriate district.
The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, denied Adams’s motions to proceed without paying filing fees, and requested that the clerk close the case. Judge James Donato ordered the dismissal on November 4, 2021.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.