(PC) Meredith v. Hayward, No. 2:2015cv01583 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 10/19/15 ORDERING that Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2 ) is GRANTING. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payme nts shall be collected in accordance with the notice to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. It is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed pursuant to 28U.S.C. § 1915A and the Clerk be directed to close the case. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Dillon, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Meredith v. Hayward Doc. 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DWAYNE MEREDITH, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. 2:15-cv-1583-TLN-EFB P v. TODD HAYWARD, 14 ORDER GRANTING IFP AND RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A Defendant. 15 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 16 17 18 § 1983, has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. I. Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 19 20 Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 21 and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915(b)(1) and (2). 23 II. Screening Requirement and Standards 24 Having granted plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application, the court must engage in a 25 preliminary screening of his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must 26 identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the 27 complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or 28 “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). Dockets.Justia.com 1 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 3 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 4 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 5 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 6 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 7 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 8 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 9 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 10 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 11 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 12 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 13 678. 14 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 15 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 16 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 17 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 18 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 19 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 20 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 21 III. 22 Screening Order Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed because he seeks monetary relief from a 23 defendant who is immune from suit. Plaintiff alleges that the deputy district attorney who 24 prosecuted him in his criminal case violated his civil rights by referring to plaintiff at trial, in the 25 presence of the jury, as the “the man in the orange jumpsuit.” ECF No. 1, § IV. Plaintiff seeks 26 fifteen million dollars in damages in order to deter future civil rights violations. Id., § V. 27 ///// 28 ///// 2 1 State prosecutors are entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity for acts taken in their 2 official capacity. See Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 123–24 (1997); Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 3 509 U.S. 259, 269–70 (1993); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 427, 430–31 (1976) (holding 4 that prosecutors are immune from civil suits for damages under § 1983 for initiating prosecutions 5 and presenting cases). This action must therefore be dismissed pursuant to § 1915A because it 6 seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 7 Because the deficiencies in plaintiff’s claim cannot be cured by further amendment, the 8 complaint is dismissed without leave to amend. Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1105 (9th 9 Cir. 2011) (“Dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to amend is proper only if it is 10 absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” 11 (internal quotation marks omitted)); Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[A] 12 district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, 13 unless it determines that the pleading could not be cured by the allegation of other facts.”). 14 IV. 15 Summary Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. 17 2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected in 18 accordance with the notice to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 19 filed concurrently herewith. 20 Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed pursuant to 28 21 U.S.C. § 1915A and the Clerk be directed to close the case. 22 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 23 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 24 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 25 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 26 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 27 ///// 28 ///// 3 1 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 2 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 Dated: October 19, 2015. 4 5 6 7 8 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.
