(PC) Wallace v. Superior Court of California for Solano et al, No. 2:2009cv01954 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/3/09 RECOMMENDING that pltf's 2 motion to proceed ifp be denied; and this action be dismissed w/out prejudice. Referred to Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr.; Objections to F&R due w/in 20 days. (Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Wallace v. Superior Court of California for Solano 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 12 13 14 Plaintiff, vs. SUPERIOR COURT, et al., Defendants. 15 16 No. CIV S-09-1954 FCD DAD P FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / Plaintiff is a state prisoner confined at the California Medical Facility proceeding 17 pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has filed an application to proceed 18 in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to the undersigned 19 magistrate judge in accordance with Local Rule 72-302 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 21 SCREENING REQUIREMENT The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 22 against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised 24 claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 25 granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 26 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (2). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 2 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 3 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 4 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 5 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 6 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 7 Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 8 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and 9 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 10 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 11 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 12 (1957)). However, in order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must 13 contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain 14 factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 15 550 U.S. at 555. In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the 16 allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 17 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all 18 doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 19 The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows: 20 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. 21 22 23 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 24 actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See 25 Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 26 (1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the 2 1 meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or 2 omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which 3 complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 4 Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the 5 actions of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named 6 defendant holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed 7 constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 8 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory 9 allegations concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not 10 sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 11 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 12 In the present case, plaintiff has named the Solano County Superior Court, the 13 Solano County District Attorney’s Office, and the California Juvenile Justice Commission as 14 defendants. Plaintiff’s complaint is difficult to decipher. However, plaintiff appears to allege 15 that the defendants have subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment as a result of his current 16 and past pre-sentence probation reports. In terms of relief, plaintiff requests damages and a court 17 order requiring the defendants to revise his current and past pre-sentence probation reports.1 18 (Compl. at 3.) 19 ///// 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 Approximately six months prior to filing this action, plaintiff filed a similar complaint in Case No. CIV S-08-3169 MCE JFM. See United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980) (a court may take judicial notice of its own records). In that case, plaintiff named the California Department of Justice, the California Adult Probation Department, the California Department of Corrections, and Solano County as the defendants. Plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that the courts have been denying him probation based on outdated information, presumably contained in pre-sentence probation reports. At the time he filed the complaint in Case No. CIV S-08-3169 MCE JFM, plaintiff was on trial in state court. On February 9, 2009, the court dismissed Case No. CIV S-08-3169 MCE JFM, without prejudice on the grounds that the action was barred under the Eleventh Amendment and the decisions in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) and Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). 3 1 ANALYSIS 2 A civil rights action is the proper mechanism for a prisoner seeking to challenge 3 the conditions of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991). In contrast, 4 habeas corpus proceedings are the proper mechanism for a prisoner seeking to challenge the fact 5 or duration of his confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). Here, plaintiff 6 claims that the Solano County Superior Court, the Solano County District Attorney’s Office, and 7 the California Juvenile Justice Commission have violated his constitutional rights by acting in 8 reliance on current and past pre-sentence reports prepared by the county probation office in 9 connection with his criminal cases. Although plaintiff’s allegations are vague and conclusory, 10 the court finds that plaintiff’s complaint implicates the validity of his current and/or past 11 confinement. Plaintiff has not indicated that any of his prior convictions have been overturned or 12 otherwise invalidated. Accordingly, a writ of habeas corpus is plaintiff’s sole remedy in federal 13 court which may be pursued only after exhausting all of his constitutional claims in state court.2 14 See, e.g., Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005) (“a state prisoner’s § 1983 action is 15 barred (absent prior invalidation) - no matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no 16 matter the target of the prisoner’s suit (state conduct leading to conviction or internal prison 17 proceedings) - if success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of 18 confinement or its duration.”) (emphasis in original); Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87 (a state prisoner 19 may not recover damages under § 1983 for allegedly unconstitutional imprisonment, or for any 20 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 The court must also dismiss this action if plaintiff is still pending trial in state court. Federal courts are barred from directly interfering with ongoing criminal proceedings in state court, absent extraordinary circumstances. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 46; Mann v. Jett, 781 F.2d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir. 1985) (“When a state criminal prosecution has begun the Younger rule directly bars a declaratory judgment action” as well as a section 1983 action for damages “where such an action would have a substantially disruptive effect upon ongoing state criminal proceedings.”). Here, plaintiff has not alleged extraordinary circumstances. Younger, 401 U.S. at 48-50. Of course, plaintiff may raise his constitutional claims in any ongoing criminal proceedings in state court. Lebbos v. Judges of the Superior Court, 883 F.2d 810, 813 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Abstention is appropriate based on ‘interest of comity and federalism [that] counsel federal courts to abstain from jurisdiction whenever federal claims have been or could be presented in ongoing state judicial proceedings that concern important state interests.’”). 4 1 other harm caused by “actions whose unlawfulness would render the imprisonment invalid,” 2 unless he can prove that the conviction or other basis for confinement has been reversed on direct 3 appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such 4 a determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus). 5 CONCLUSION 6 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 7 1. Plaintiff’s July 17, 2009 motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) be 8 denied; and 9 2. This action be dismissed without prejudice. 10 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 11 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty 12 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 13 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 14 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 15 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 16 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 17 DATED: September 3, 2009. 18 19 20 DAD:9 wall1954.56 21 22 23 24 25 26 5
]]>
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.
