Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Marcus A. Price, a patient at Napa State Hospital proceeding without an attorney, filed two civil rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In Case No. 26-cv-8063, Price alleged that a pizza restaurant in Ohio was illegally using his name and likeness in its business in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and he sought two hundred million dollars in damages. In Case No. 26-cv-8716, he alleged that PNC Bank was using his name to convince customers that its products are reliable, also in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and he sought twenty-four million dollars in damages.
The court subjected both complaints to the preliminary screening that 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) requires for cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or its officers or employees. That statute directs courts to identify any cognizable claims and to dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune. The court construed Price's pro se pleadings liberally, as required by Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, but also applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and the plausibility standards of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, under which a complaint must allege enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.
The Court’s Holding
The court dismissed both cases in their entirety, concluding that the complaints were 'devoid of facts that might plausibly allege a claim' and were 'frivolous' and failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court explained that to state a § 1983 claim a plaintiff must allege that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and that the deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law, citing West v. Atkins. The allegations against a private pizza restaurant and a private bank did not plausibly involve any person acting under color of state law, and the Fifth Amendment claims rested on no plausible factual basis.
Because no amount of amendment would cure the deficiencies in either complaint, the court dismissed the cases and denied leave to amend. The order directs the Clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The order is dated October 15, 2026, and was issued by United States District Judge James Donato.
Key Takeaways
- Federal courts must preliminarily screen prisoner civil rights complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and may dismiss claims that are frivolous or fail to state a claim before any responsive pleading is filed.
- A claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires a deprivation committed by a person acting under color of state law, an element that purely private businesses such as a restaurant or a bank ordinarily cannot satisfy.
- The Fifth Amendment restricts government action, not the conduct of private commercial parties.
- Dismissal without leave to amend is appropriate where no amendment could cure the fundamental deficiencies of the complaint.
- Pro se pleadings are liberally construed, but they must still contain enough well-pleaded factual matter to state a claim that is plausible on its face under Twombly and Iqbal.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the gatekeeping function federal courts perform under § 1915A, filtering out frivolous civil rights litigation at the earliest stage and conserving judicial resources. By dismissing both complaints without leave to amend, the court signaled that the claims were so lacking in legal and factual merit that no opportunity to replead was warranted.
The decision reinforces that § 1983 and the Fifth Amendment do not provide a vehicle for claims against purely private commercial entities absent state action, and it underscores the importance of the preliminary screening process in managing prisoner civil rights dockets in the Northern District of California.