(PC) Becker v. Riebe et al, No. 2:2015cv02039 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/8/2015 DIRECTING the Clerk to randomly assign a US District Judge to this action. IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's 2 motion to proceed ifp be denied; and this action be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. Assigned and referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH P. BECKER, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:15-cv-2039 DAD P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND TODD RIEBE et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This 19 proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). SCREENING REQUIREMENT 20 21 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 22 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 claims 24 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). 27 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 28 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 1 1 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 2 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 3 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 4 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 5 Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 6 7 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 8 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 9 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 10 However, in order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more 11 than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual 12 allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550 13 U.S. at 555. In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the 14 allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 15 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all 16 doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 17 The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows: 18 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. 19 20 21 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 22 actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See 23 Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 24 (1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the 25 meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or 26 omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which 27 complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 28 ///// 2 1 Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of 2 their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant 3 holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional 4 violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); 5 Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations 6 concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See 7 Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 8 9 DISCUSSION In his complaint, plaintiff has identified Amador County District Attorney Todd Riebe and 10 Deputy District Attorney Robert Trudgen as the defendants in this case. Plaintiff alleges that the 11 defendants presented false information to the Amador County Superior Court to secure plaintiff’s 12 transfer from Corcoran State Prison to the Amador County Jail. As a result of the transfer, 13 plaintiff alleges that he has lost the “work product” he needs to defend against the criminal charge 14 pending against him that the named defendants are prosecuting. (Compl. at 3.) 15 Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cognizable claim for relief against the defendants. 16 Specifically, prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity from liability “in preparing for the 17 initiation of judicial proceedings or for trial, and which occur in the course of his role as an 18 advocate for the State.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976). See also Olsen v. Idaho 19 State Bd. of Medicine, 363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Absolute immunity is generally 20 accorded to judges and prosecutors functioning in their official capacities”); Broam v. Bogan, 320 21 F.3d 1023, 1028 (9th Cir. 2003) (prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity from conduct that 22 takes place in connection with activities “‘intimately associated with the judicial phase of the 23 criminal process.’”) (quoting Imber, 424 U.S. at 430); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1078 24 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc) (“Prosecutors are absolutely immune for quasi-judicial activities taken 25 within the scope of their authority.”); Litmon v. Santa Clara County Superior Court, No. C 05- 26 3065 RMW (PR), 2008 WL 2271601 at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 30, 2008) (deputy district attorney 27 who allegedly “secretly” met with judge and caused judge to order plaintiff’s transfer from 28 county jail to state hospital was entitled to absolute immunity). 3 1 Where, as here, it is clear that granting plaintiff leave to amend his complaint would be 2 futile, the court will recommend that this action be dismissed. See Chaset v. Fleer/Skybox Int’l, 3 300 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002) (there is no need to prolong the litigation by permitting 4 further amendment where the “basic flaw” in the underlying facts as alleged cannot be cured by 5 amendment); Lipton v. Pathogenesis Corp., 284 F.3d 1027, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Because any 6 amendment would be futile, there was no need to prolong the litigation by permitting further 7 amendment.”). 8 9 10 CONCLUSION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. 11 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 12 1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) be denied; and 13 2. This action be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. 14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 15 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 16 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 17 with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 18 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 19 failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 20 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 Dated: October 8, 2015 22 23 24 DAD:9 beck2039.56 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.
