(PC) Speck v. Shasta County Sheriff Department et al, No. 2:2009cv03440 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER ; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 3/30/11 ORDERING that 2 Motion to Proceed IFP is GRANTED; RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed for plaintiff's failure to state a claim; 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M) (Main Document 9 replaced on 3/30/2011) (Dillon, M).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Speck v. Shasta County Sheriff Department et al Doc. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 COREY D. SPECK, Plaintiff, 11 vs. 12 13 No. CIV S-09-3440 GEB EFB P SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, et al., ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 Defendants. 15 / 16 Corey D. Speck, an inmate, filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 17 18 In addition to filing a complaint, plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 19 This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 For the reasons set forth below, the court finds that plaintiff’s complaint fails to state any claims 21 for which relief can be granted under section 1983 and recommends that this action be dismissed 22 with prejudice. 23 I. Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 24 Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 25 Dckt. No. 2. Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and 26 (2). Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 collect and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1915(b)(1) and (2). 3 II. 4 Screening Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court shall review “a complaint in a civil action in 5 which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 6 governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). “On review, the court shall identify cognizable 7 claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint (1) is frivolous, 8 malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief 9 from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 10 A district court must construe a pro se pleading “liberally” to determine if it states a 11 claim and, prior to dismissal, tell a plaintiff of deficiencies in his complaint and give plaintiff an 12 opportunity to cure them. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000). While 13 detailed factual allegations are not required, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of 14 action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 15 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff 16 must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is 17 plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). 18 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. 19 20 21 22 Id. (citations and quotation marks omitted). Although legal conclusions can provide the 23 framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations, and are not entitled to 24 the assumption of truth. Id. at 1950. 25 //// 26 //// 2 1 The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides: 2 4 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 . . . 5 42 U.S.C. § 1983. An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the facts 6 establish the defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal 7 connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation. 8 See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 9 (9th Cir. 1978). 3 10 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and finds it 11 does not state a cognizable claim. Plaintiff’s complaint states that Deputy McQuillan pulled him 12 over because he was a minority and conducted an illegal search of his vehicle. He states that he 13 has been falsely imprisoned and that the officers lied and violated his fourth amendment rights. 14 He requests that the officers be fired and have charges brought against them and that he be 15 compensated. Dckt. No. 1 at 3. Plaintiff’s claims challenge the validity of his conviction or 16 sentence. The Supreme Court has held that “a state prisoner’s § 1983 action is barred (absent 17 prior invalidation)--no matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target 18 of the prisoner’s suit (state conduct leading to conviction or internal prison proceedings)--if 19 success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its 20 duration.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005) (emphasis added); see also Edwards 21 v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Were plaintiff to 22 succeed on his claims that defendants violated his fourth amendment rights, those findings would 23 necessarily implicate the constitutionality of plaintiff’s imprisonment. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 24 487. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that his sentence has previously been invalidated. His 25 claims challenging the validity of his conviction should therefore be dismissed without leave to 26 amend. 3 1 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 3 Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure 4 to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1128 (9th Cir. 5 2000) (indigent prisoner proceeding without counsel must be given leave to file amended 6 complaint unless the court can rule out any possibility that the plaintiff could state a claim). 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 8 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 9 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 10 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 11 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 12 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 13 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 Dated: March 30, 2011. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.
