-JLT (PC) Castellanos v. Ferguson et al, No. 1:2010cv02261 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that this 11 Action be Dismissed signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 02/09/2011. Referred to Judge O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 3/7/2011. (Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-JLT (PC) Castellanos v. Ferguson et al Doc. 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JULIO CESAR CASTELLANOS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 Case No. 1:10-cv-02261 LJO JLT (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED vs. DARRYL B. FERGUSON, et al., 15 (Doc. 11) Defendants. 16 / 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983. By order filed January 18, 2011, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. 19 Plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint on February 4, 2011. 20 I. SCREENING 21 A. 22 The Court is required to review a case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental 23 entity or officer. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must review the complaint and dismiss any portion 24 thereof that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks 25 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If the Court 26 determines the complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend should be granted to the extent that the 27 deficiencies in the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th 28 Cir. 2000) (en banc). Screening Requirement 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 B. 2 The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows: 3 Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 4 Section 1983 5 6 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 7 To plead a § 1983 violation, the plaintiff must allege facts from which it may be inferred that (1) 8 plaintiff was deprived of a federal right, and (2) the person who deprived plaintiff of that right acted 9 under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Collins v. Womancare, 878 F.2d 1145, 10 1147 (9th Cir. 1989). To warrant relief under § 1983, the plaintiff must allege and show that the 11 defendants’ acts or omissions caused the deprivation of the plaintiff’s constitutionally protected rights. 12 Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1993). “A person deprives another of a constitutional right, 13 within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative 14 acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which 15 [the plaintiff complains].” Id. There must be an actual causal connection or link between the actions 16 of each defendant and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiff. Monell v. Dept. of 17 Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691-92 (1978) (citing Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 370-71(1976)). 18 C. 19 Section 1983 complaints are governed by the notice pleading standard in Federal Rule of Civil 20 Rule 8(a) Procedure 8(a), which provides in relevant part that: 21 A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain: 22 (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support; 23 24 (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and 25 (3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief. 26 27 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy. Nevertheless, a complaint 28 must “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests[.]” Bell 2 1 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 2 (1957)). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than 3 labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do[.]” 4 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations and quotations omitted). Rather, the complaint “must contain 5 sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” 6 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868, 883 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. 7 at 570). Vague and conclusory allegations are insufficient to state a claim under § 1983. Ivey v. Board 8 of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 9 II. THE AMENDED COMPLAINT 10 Plaintiff reiterates the same allegations and claims asserted in his original complaint. Plaintiff 11 identifies Superior Court Judge Darryl B. Ferguson, Deputy District Attorney Phillip Cline, Deputy 12 Public Defender Greg Hagopian, and Plaintiff’s former defense counsel, Albert Garcia, as defendants 13 to this action. (Doc. 11 at 2-3.) Plaintiff claims that Defendants conspired to deny him a fair trial in 14 violation of the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff alleges that discovery 15 will show that Defendants acted “by and through racial discrimination.” (Id.) As relief, Plaintiff seeks 16 an injunction enjoining Defendants from imposing harsher punishment against Plaintiff during his 17 collateral attack on his sentencing enhancement. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff also seeks $50,000 in monetary 18 damages from each defendant. (Id.) 19 III. DISCUSSION 20 A. 21 Plaintiff’s allegations of racial discrimination implicate the Equal Protection Clause of the 22 Fourteenth Amendment. “Prisoners are protected under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth 23 Amendment from invidious discrimination based on race.” Wolff, 418 U.S. at 556. To state a viable 24 equal protection claim in this regard, a prisoner “must plead intentional unlawful discrimination or allege 25 facts that are at least susceptible of an inference of discriminatory intent.” Byrd v. Maricopa County 26 Sheriff’s Dep’t, 565 F.3d 1205, 1212 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Monteiro v. Temple Union High School 27 District, 158 F.3d 1022, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998)). “Intentional discrimination means that a defendant acted 28 at least in part because of a plaintiff’s protected status.” Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th Equal Protection 3 1 Cir. 2003) (quoting Maynard v. City of San Jose, 37 F.3d 1396, 1404 (9th Cir. 1994)) (emphasis in 2 original). 3 Here, the amended complaint is devoid of any “factual matter” demonstrating that Defendants 4 acted with racial animus. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. Plaintiff’s bald assertion that discovery will reveal 5 racial discrimination on the part of Defendants is insufficient to meet Plaintiff’s pleading obligations 6 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Id.; Ivey, 673 F.2d at 268. As such, Plaintiff fails to state 7 a cognizable equal protection claim. 8 B. 9 To plead a viable conspiracy claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating an Conspiracy 10 agreement or meeting of the minds between defendants to violate plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 11 Franklin v. Fox, 312 F.3d 423, 441 (9th Cir. 2001). Again, Plaintiff has failed to allege specific facts 12 in the amended complaint, let alone facts showing that Defendants reached an agreement to violate his 13 constitutional rights. Plaintiff thus fails to state a cognizable conspiracy claim. 14 C. 15 In its screening order, the Court advised Plaintiff that his claims may be barred under Heck v. 16 Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Plaintiff was told that to the extent that he seeks monetary damages 17 for claims involving his past criminal proceedings, he must demonstrate that those proceedings have 18 been invalidated through appropriate state remedies or by a federal habeas action. See Heck, 512 U.S. 19 at 486-87 (a prisoner may not seek damages under § 1983 based on allegations that imply the invalidity 20 of his confinement until he has established that his confinement is illegal). Plaintiff, however, has failed 21 to demonstrate in his amended complaint that his criminal convictions relating these matters have been 22 overturned or otherwise invalidated. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages are barred 23 under Heck. Heck Bar 24 D. 25 Plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages against Superior Court Judge Darryl B. Ferguson and 26 Deputy District Attorney Cline are also barred, as these defendants are immune from suit. As the Court 27 previously explained to Plaintiff in its screening order, “judges are immune from damage actions for 28 judicial acts taken within the jurisdiction of their courts.” Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Immunity 4 1 Cir. 1986). Also, where a prosecutor acts in a quasi-judicial capacity “in initiating a prosecution and in 2 presenting the state’s case” he too enjoys immunity from suit. Ybarra v. Reno Thunderbird Mobile 3 Home Village, 723 F.2d 675, 678 (9th Cir. 1984) (quoting Imbler, 424 U.S. at 431). Thus, Plaintiff may 4 not recover damages based on his conclusory allegation that Superior Court Judge Darryl B. Ferguson 5 and Deputy District Attorney Cline conspired against him during his criminal proceedings. Ashelman, 6 793 F.2d at 1078 (conspiracy between a judge and prosecutor to predetermine the outcome of a judicial 7 proceeding, while improper, does not pierce the immunity extended to them). 8 E. 9 The Court dismissed the original complaint with leave to amend and informed Plaintiff of the 10 deficiencies of his claims. Plaintiff has failed to amend the complaint in a meaningful way to address 11 the deficiencies identified by the Court in its screening order. Accordingly, the Court will recommend 12 that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127 (leave to amend 13 should be granted unless the court determines that the pleading cannot be cured); see also Ferdik v. 14 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal with prejudice upheld where the court had 15 instructed plaintiff regarding the deficiencies in the pleadings prior to dismissing claim without leave 16 to amend). 17 IV. No Leave to Amend CONCLUSION 18 In accordance with the above, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 19 1. This action be DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim; and 20 2. This case be closed. 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 5 1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned 2 to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Within twenty-one days after being 3 served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. 4 If Plaintiff elects to file written objections, he should caption the document as “Objections to Magistrate 5 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 6 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 7 (9th Cir. 1991). 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 9, 2011 9j7khi /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
