Price v. Libardi

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARCUS A. PRICE,
Plaintiff,
v.
TONY LIBARDI, et. al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 26-cv-08063-JD
26-cv-08716-JD
ORDER RE DISMISSAL
Pro se plaintiff Price, a patient at Napa State Hospital, filed two civil rights complaints
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Federal courts engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress
from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). The Court will identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims which are
frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings are
liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although a complaint “does not need detailed
factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to
relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do . . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above
the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations
omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has stated the “plausible on its face” standard
Case 3:26-cv-08063-JD Document 3 Filed 10/15/26 Page 1 of 2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be
supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should
assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to
relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by
the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was
committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
In Case No. 26-cv-8063, plaintiff alleges that a pizza restaurant in Ohio is illegally using
his name and likeness in their business in violation of the Fifth Amendment. He seeks two
hundred million dollars in damages. In Case No. 26-cv-8716, plaintiff alleges that PNC Bank is
using his name to convince customers that their products are reliable in violation of the Fifth
Amendment. He seeks twenty-four millions dollars in damages. In each case, the complaints are
devoid of facts that might plausibly allege a claim.
These cases are frivolous and fail to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because no
amount of amendment would cure the deficiencies in these complaints, these cases are dismissed
and leave to amend is denied. The Clerk is requested to terminate all pending motions and close
the cases.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 15, 2026
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-08063-JD Document 3 Filed 10/15/26 Page 2 of 2