Taylor v. Fresno County Superior Court House, et al., No. 1:2009cv00035 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 1/23/2009. Motion referred to Judge Oliver W. Wanger, Objections to F&R due by 2/26/2009. (Esteves, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Taylor v. Fresno County Superior Court House, et al. Doc. 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 MICHEAL TAYLOR, 9 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 13 FRESNO COUNTY COURT HOUSE, et al., 14 15 Defendant. ) 1:09cv0035 OWW DLB ) ) ) ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION ) REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 16 17 Plaintiff Micheal Taylor (“Plaintiff”) is incarcerated in the Fresno County Jail. 18 Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, he filed the instant action on January 8, 2009. For the 19 reasons stated below, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without 20 leave to amend. 21 22 DISCUSSION A. Screening Standard 23 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must conduct an initial review of the 24 complaint for sufficiency to state a claim. The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof 25 if the court determines that the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim 26 upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 27 from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the court determines that the complaint fails to state 28 a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 cured by amendment. 2 In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the Court must accept as true the allegations 3 of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740 4 (1976), construe the pro se pleadings liberally in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick 5 v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor, 6 Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 7 B. 8 Allegations Plaintiff is incarcerated in the Fresno County Jail. He attempts to bring this section 1983 9 action against Judge Denise Whitehead, Deputy District Attorney Roger Wilson and attorneys 10 “Nuttal and Coleman.” He alleges that Defendants denied him his due process rights “in [not] 11 obtaining a sensible modified release.” Complaint, at 3. He also alleges that his chances of 12 receiving a fair hearing have been “destroyed.” Complaint, at 3. 13 For relief, Plaintiff requests that “this justice be reprimanded,” that a change of venue 14 motion be granted, that the facts of his case be taken into consideration, and that modified release 15 be granted. 16 C. Analysis Abstention 17 1. 18 From the allegations in his complaint, it appears that Plaintiff is involved in an 19 underlying, ongoing state criminal prosecution. Generally, the federal courts will not intervene 20 in a pending criminal proceeding absent extraordinary circumstances where the danger of 21 irreparable harm is both great and immediate. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45-46 (1971); 22 see also Fort Belknap Indian Community, 43 F.3d 428, 431 (9th Cir. 1994) (abstention 23 appropriate if ongoing state judicial proceedings implicate important state interests and offer 24 adequate opportunity to litigate federal constitutional issues). 25 Here, Plaintiff makes conclusory, unsupported allegations that his due process rights were 26 violated by the denial of his request for modified release. He also alleges, again without factual 27 support, that he cannot get a fair trial. These allegations do not constitute extraordinary 28 circumstances so as to overcome abstention. 2 Immunity 1 2. 2 State court judges and prosecutors are immune from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 3 See Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Medicine, 363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Absolute 4 immunity is generally accorded to judges and prosecutors functioning in their official 5 capacities”); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir.1986) (holding that judges and 6 prosecutors are immune from liability for damages under section 1983 ). Therefore, Defendants 7 Whitehead and Wilson are entitled to immunity. Section 1983 Requirements 8 3. 9 The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides: 10 11 12 13 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. Plaintiff names “Nuttal and Coleman” as a Defendant and has not specified an individual 14 within the law firm as a defendant. The law firm “Nuttal and Coleman” is not a “person” under 15 section 198. Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff attempted to name his private criminal defense 16 attorneys, they do not act “under color of state law” for purposes of section 1983. Plaintiff is 17 further advised that if he intended to state a cause of action for legal malpractice, this is a 18 state-law claim for which “there exists no independent basis of federal jurisdiction.” See Aragon 19 v. Federated Dept. Stores, Inc., 750 F.2d 1447, 1457-58 (9th Cir.1985) (finding no jurisdiction 20 over state law malpractice claim action against law firm for mishandling of labor grievance). 21 Plaintiff’s complaint therefore fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted, and 22 he cannot cure these deficiencies by amendment. Therefore, the Court finds that the action 23 should be DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. 24 RECOMMENDATION 25 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED 26 27 28 WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days after being 3 1 served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections with the 2 Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 3 Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 4 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 5 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3b142a January 23, 2009 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4
]]>
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.
