(PC) Bonilla v. Leedy, No. 2:2018cv01370 - Document 3 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 5/25/2018 ORDERING the Clerk to randomly assign a US District Judge to this action and RECOMMENDING this action be dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a claim. Assigned and referred to Judge William B. Shubb; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Bonilla v. Leedy Doc. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, 12 13 14 No. 2:18-cv-1370 AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER and NATHAN G. LEEDY, Superior Court Judge, 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendant. 16 17 I. Introduction 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has neither paid the filing fee nor submitted a request to proceed in 20 forma pauperis. This action is referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge 21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c). For the reasons that follow, the 22 undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed without leave to amend. 23 24 25 II. Screening of Plaintiff’s Complaint Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A A. Legal Standards for Screening Prisoner Complaints The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 26 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 27 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 28 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 2 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. 3 Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 4 1984). 5 “A document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally construed,’ and ‘a pro se complaint, however 6 inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by 7 lawyers.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 8 106 (1976) (internal quotation marks omitted)). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e) (“Pleadings shall be 9 so construed as to do justice.”). Additionally, a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the 10 deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies 11 cannot be cured by amendment. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987). 12 B. Plaintiff’s Claims 13 Plaintiff alleges that his Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when defendant 14 Leedy, a superior court judge, admitted inadmissible evidence. ECF No. 1 at 3-13. Plaintiff 15 seeks the recusal or disqualification of defendant from any matters in which plaintiff appears, an 16 order “vacat[ing] the void judgment,” and directing his immediate release from prison. Id. at 3, 17 13. 18 19 20 C. Analysis i. Defendant Is Immune “[I]n any action brought against a judicial officer [under Section 1983] for an act or 21 omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a 22 declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.” 28 U.S.C. § 1983. 23 Defendant’s putative ruling on the admissibility of evidence falls squarely within the scope of 24 activity performed in his judicial capacity, and there is no indication that this action falls within 25 Section 1983’s narrow exception to judicial immunity. Defendant Leedy is therefore immune 26 from liability and the claims against him should be dismissed. 27 ii. Failure to State Section 1983 Claim 28 State prisoners may not attack the fact or length of their confinement in a Section 1983 2 1 action and “habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy” for such claims. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 2 U.S. 475, 490 (1973); Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 930 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that habeas 3 corpus is “available only for state prisoner claims that lie at the core of habeas (and is the 4 exclusive remedy for such claims), while Section 1983 is the exclusive remedy for state prisoner 5 claims that do not lie at the core of habeas”). Here, plaintiff’s claims lie directly within the core 6 of habeas corpus because he is challenging the validity of his continued confinement and a 7 favorable determination would result in his speedier release. These allegations fail to state 8 cognizable claims for relief under Section 1983 and should therefore be dismissed. 9 The court declines to offer plaintiff the option to convert his claims to an action for habeas 10 corpus relief. Habeas petitions may be filed in the district of confinement or conviction. See 28 11 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Based on the information provided in the complaint and attachments, 12 plaintiff’s claims relate to his capital conviction in Alameda County (id. at 6, 15-16, 24) and his 13 current incarceration in Marin County, both of which are situated in the Northern District of 14 California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(a). Therefore, if plaintiff wishes to challenge his conviction or 15 sentence, he will need to do so by filing a habeas petition in the United States District Court for 16 the Northern District of California. 17 18 iii. No Leave to Amend Leave to amend should be granted if it appears possible that the defects in the complaint 19 could be corrected, especially if a plaintiff is pro se. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 20 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (“A pro se 21 litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint, and some notice of its deficiencies, 22 unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by 23 amendment.” (citing Noll, 809 F.2d at 1448)). However, if, after careful consideration, it is clear 24 that a complaint cannot be cured by amendment, the court may dismiss the action without leave to 25 amend. Cato, 70 F.3d at 1005-06. 26 The undersigned finds, for the reasons explained above, that the complaint fails to state a 27 claim upon which relief may be granted and that amendment would be futile. The complaint 28 should therefore be dismissed without leave to amend. 3 1 III. 2 The undersigned recommends that your claims should be dismissed because, even if true, 3 defendant is immune from suit under Section 1983. The court will not convert your complaint to 4 a habeas petition because, if you want to bring a habeas petition, you need to file it in the United 5 States District Court for the Northern District of California. Plain Language Summary for Pro Se Litigant 6 IV. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly 8 9 10 Conclusion assign a United States District Judge to this action. FURTHER, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a claim. 11 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 12 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 13 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 14 objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 15 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within 16 the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 17 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 18 DATED: May 25, 2018 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.
