(PC) Wallace v. Brown et al, No. 2:2009cv00502 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER granting 2 Motion to proceed in forma pauperis signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 5/3/10: The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days. (Kaminski, H)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Wallace v. Brown et al Doc. 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RICHARD WALLACE, 11 Plaintiff, 13 No. CIV S-09-0502 JAM EFB P vs. 12 JERRY BROWN et. al., Defendants. 14 ORDER / 15 Richard Wallace, an inmate confined at Solano County Jail, filed this pro se civil rights 16 17 action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to filing a complaint, plaintiff has filed an application 18 to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). For the reasons set forth below, the court finds that plaintiff’s 20 amended complaint fails to state any claims for which relief can be granted under § 1983, and 21 dismisses it with leave to amend within 30 days. 22 I. Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 23 Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 24 Dckt. No. 2. Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and 25 (2). Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to 26 collect and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 § 1915(b)(1) and (2). 2 II. 3 Screening Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court shall review “a complaint in a civil action in 4 which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 5 governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). “On review, the court shall identify cognizable 6 claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint (1) is frivolous, 7 malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief 8 from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 9 A district court must construe a pro se pleading “liberally” to determine if it states a 10 claim and, prior to dismissal, tell a plaintiff of deficiencies in his complaint and give plaintiff an 11 opportunity to cure them. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000). While 12 detailed factual allegations are not required, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of 13 action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 14 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff 15 must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is 16 plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). 17 18 19 20 A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief. 21 Id. (citations and quotation marks omitted). Although legal conclusions can provide the 22 framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations, and are not entitled to 23 the assumption of truth. Id. at 1950. 24 The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides: 25 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 26 2 1 party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . . . 2 3 42 U.S.C. § 1983. An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the facts 4 establish the defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal 5 connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation. 6 See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 7 (9th Cir. 1978) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and finds it does not state a cognizable claim. Plaintiff’s complaint states: the Attorney General denied me due process of law regarding criminal history during the years of 2001-2003 and parole unit supervisor Laura Campoy treated me with cruel and unusual punishment and false imprisoned me during the years of 20012003 and parole agent Martinez Geiger falsely arrested and denied me equal protection law[.] Also the above parties violated my civil liberties. Dckt. No. 1 at 4. Although the factual nature of plaintiff’s claims are unclear, it appears that some of his 16 claims challenge the validity of his conviction or sentence. The Supreme Court has held that “a 17 state prisoner’s § 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation)--no matter the relief sought 18 (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner’s suit (state conduct leading to 19 conviction or internal prison proceedings)--if success in that action would necessarily 20 demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 21 81-82 (2005) (emphasis added); see also Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997); Heck v. 22 Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). For example, were plaintiff to succeed on his claims that 23 defendants violated his due process rights in his parole hearing, those findings would necessarily 24 implicate the constitutionality of plaintiff’s current imprisonment. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. 25 Plaintiff has not demonstrated that his sentence has previously been invalidated. His claims 26 challenging the validity of his conviction or sentence should therefore be dismissed without 3 1 2 leave to amend. However, it also appears that plaintiff may also have claims that do not challenge the 3 validity of his conviction or sentence. Thus, to proceed plaintiff must file an amended complaint 4 explaining his claims in greater factual detail. 5 Any amended complaint must adhere to the following requirements: 6 It must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. E.D. Cal. Local 7 Rule 220; see Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended 8 complaint, the original pleading is superseded. 9 It must show that the federal court has jurisdiction and that plaintiff’s action is brought in 10 the right place, that plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true, and must 11 contain a request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons who 12 personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional right. 13 Johnson, 588 F.2d at 743 (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a constitutional right if 14 he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is legally required to do 15 that causes the alleged deprivation). 16 17 18 It must contain a caption including the name of the court and the names of all parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). Plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. Fed. R. Civ. 19 P. 18(a). If plaintiff has more than one claim based upon separate transactions or occurrences, 20 the claims must be set forth in separate paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiff may join 21 multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). Unrelated claims 22 against different defendants must be pursued in multiple lawsuits. “The controlling principle 23 appears in Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a): ‘A party asserting a claim . . . may join, [] as independent or as 24 alternate claims, as many claims . . . as the party has against an opposing party.’ Thus multiple 25 claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with 26 unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in 4 1 different suits, not only to prevent the sort of morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit 2 produce[s], but also to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees-for the Prison Litigation 3 Reform Act limits to 3 the number of frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file 4 without prepayment of the required fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 5 607 (7th Cir. 2007); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) (joinder of defendants not permitted unless 6 both commonality and same transaction requirements are satisfied). 7 The allegations must be short and plain, simple and direct and describe the relief plaintiff 8 seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002); Galbraith v. 9 County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002). A long, rambling pleading, 10 including many defendants with unexplained, tenuous or implausible connection to the alleged 11 constitutional injury or joining a series of unrelated claims against many defendants very likely 12 will result in delaying the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and an order dismissing 13 plaintiff’s action pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for violation of 14 these instructions. 15 Plaintiff must sign the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). By signing an amended 16 complaint, plaintiff certifies he has made reasonable inquiry and has evidentiary support for his 17 allegations and that for violation of this rule the court may impose sanctions sufficient to deter 18 repetition by plaintiff or others. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. A prisoner may bring no § 1983 action until he has exhausted such administrative 19 20 remedies as are available to him. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The requirement is mandatory. Booth 21 v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). By signing an amended complaint plaintiff certifies his 22 claims are warranted by existing law, including the law that he exhaust administrative remedies, 23 and that for violation of this rule plaintiff risks dismissal of his entire action 24 Accordingly, the court hereby orders that: 25 1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 26 //// 5 1 2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected in 2 accordance with the notice to the Director of the California Department of Corrections and 3 Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. 4 3. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days. The amended 5 complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and be titled “First Amended 6 Complaint.” Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be 7 dismissed. If plaintiff files an amended complaint stating a cognizable claim the court will 8 proceed with service of process by the United States Marshal. 9 Dated: May 3, 2010. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.
