Alexander-Campos v. Bruce
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-03274
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Alexander-Campos v. Bruce, Judge Hamilton dismissed the civil-rights complaint with leave to amend, seeking location, timing, and prior-case details.
Robert J. Alexander-Campos must file an amended complaint with the requested information within 28 days if he wishes to continue the case; the defendants remain named in the complaint, but the court did not reach the merits of the allegations.
What happened
In Alexander-Campos v. Bruce, Robert J. Alexander-Campos, a detainee representing himself, filed a civil-rights complaint under a federal law allowing suits for violations of constitutional or federal rights. The court reviewed the complaint before the case could proceed.
Alexander-Campos alleged that defendants used excessive force against him and falsified reports. The court said the incident appeared to have occurred at Pleasant Valley State Prison, which is in the Eastern District of California, although he also identified a defendant who resides in Pleasanton. He also said an earlier case about the incident had been dismissed without prejudice.
Judge Hamilton dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. She gave Alexander-Campos one opportunity to provide the incident’s location and date, identify the court that handled the earlier case, and provide its docket number if possible. He had 28 days to file an amended complaint.
The detailed version
- Alexander-Campos v. Bruce · No. 4:22-cv-03274
- Phyllis Hamilton
- July 7, 2022
Background
Robert J. Alexander-Campos, a detainee proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. He alleged that defendants used excessive force against him and falsified reports.
Screening standard
The court conducted the preliminary review required for complaints filed by prisoners seeking relief from government entities or officers. Under that review, the court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek money from a defendant who is immune from such relief. The court also explained that a § 1983 claim requires allegations that a constitutional or federal legal right was violated by someone acting under state law.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that the alleged incident appeared to have occurred at Pleasant Valley State Prison, which lies within the venue of the Eastern District of California. Alexander-Campos also stated that a defendant resides in Pleasanton, which is in the Northern District of California. He further stated that an earlier case concerning the incident had been dismissed without prejudice. The court required more information about where and when the incident occurred and which court handled the earlier case. It also asked for the earlier case’s docket number, if possible.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend and allowed one opportunity to provide the requested information. The amended complaint had to be filed within 28 days of the order and had to include all claims Alexander-Campos wished to present; he could not incorporate the original complaint by reference. The court also stated that failure to prosecute or comply with court orders could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.