Moses v. Marin Corporation

Background

David John Moses, an inmate at Napa Valley State Hospital, filed a civil-rights complaint without an attorney under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That statute provides a claim for violating federal constitutional or statutory rights while acting under state law. Moses sued two individuals and “Marin Corporation.” His application to proceed without paying the filing fee was granted in a separate order.

Because Moses was a prisoner suing governmental entities or officials, the court conducted the required preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At this stage, the court must identify legally sufficient claims and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also applied the requirement that a complaint provide enough factual content to make liability plausible, rather than relying on labels or conclusions.

Court’s analysis

The court found several defects:

- Moses did not explain where Paul Haakenson worked or what position he held, describing him only as a “demonized clerk.” Moses alleged “treason” and “acts of war and torture,” including denial of bail, habeas relief, and due process, but did not explain how Haakenson caused those alleged violations or how the cited statutes and decisions related to a federal right. - Moses alleged only that Kim “condoned these facts.” He did not identify Kim’s position, explain what Kim allegedly condoned, describe how Kim condoned it, or identify actions showing Kim’s personal involvement in violating Moses’s rights. - The complaint did not make clear whether “Marin Corporation” was a private company or a government entity. If it was a private company, Moses had not alleged actions or omissions by it that violated his constitutional rights, and private entities are generally not liable under § 1983. He also had not provided its location for service. If he meant Marin County, he needed to say so and allege a county policy or custom that caused the constitutional violation. The court found that he had not done that. - Moses alleged that a San Rafael police officer used excessive force, but he did not name or identify that officer as a defendant. The court permitted him to use “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” temporarily if he could not yet identify the officer.

Disposition

The court DISMISSED the complaint WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Moses had to file an amended complaint by September 10, 2022, using the case caption and number specified in the order and labeling it “COURT-ORDERED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT.” The court stated that the amended complaint would replace the original, so Moses had to include all claims he wished to pursue rather than incorporate the original complaint by reference. The order warned that failure to file an amended complaint on time, or filing one that remained insufficient, would result in dismissal. Judge Jacquelyn Corley also directed Moses to keep the court informed of address changes and warned that failure to prosecute or comply with court orders could lead to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).