(PC)Hampton v. State of California et al, No. 2:2019cv00851 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 7/24/2019 GRANTING plaintiff's 2 motion to proceed IFP and DISMISSING plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend within 30 days. Plaintiff shall pay the � 36;350.00 filing fee in accordance with the concurrent CDCR order. IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's 7 motion for injunctive relief and petition for writ of mandamus be denied. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections to F&R 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 JONATHON ANDREW HAMPTON, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:19-cv-0851 JAM DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges his rights were violated during his 2009 criminal trial and 19 requests immediate release from custody. Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion to 20 proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 7), and his 21 complaint for screening (ECF No. 1). For the reasons set forth below, the court will grant 22 plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dismiss the complaint with leave to amend, and 23 recommend that his motion for injunctive relief be denied. 24 IN FORMA PAUPERIS 25 Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 26 27 28 1915(a). (ECF No. 2.) Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in 1 1 accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct 2 the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and 3 forward it to the Clerk of the court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments 4 of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. 5 These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time 6 the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 7 1915(b)(2). 8 9 10 SCREENING I. Legal Standards The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 11 governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 12 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims 13 that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 14 granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 15 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (2). 16 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 17 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 18 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 19 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 20 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 21 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 22 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 23 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 24 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 25 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 26 However, in order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more 27 that “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual 28 allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550 2 1 U.S. at 555. In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the 2 allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 3 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all 4 doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 5 The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows: 6 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. 7 8 9 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 10 actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See 11 Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). “A 12 person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 13 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts or omits to perform 14 an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” 15 Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 16 Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of 17 their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant 18 holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional 19 violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); 20 Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations 21 concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See 22 Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 23 24 I. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) To determine whether a complaint states a claim, the court looks to the pleading standards 25 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). “Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to 26 all civil actions, with limited exceptions,” none of which applies here. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema 27 N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 513 (2002). Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible 28 pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and 3 1 succinctly. Jones v. Community Redevelopment Agency of City of Los Angeles, 733 F.2d 646, 2 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff’s complaint is 206 pages long, contains over 53 pages of handwritten allegations, 3 4 and numerous exhibits. The complaint is neither short nor plain, and therefore does not comply 5 with Rule 8. Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 409, 415 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 6 1021 (1985) (confusing and conclusory complaint exceeding 70 pages with attachments, was 7 subject to dismissal for want of a short and plain statement of the claim); Hollis v. York, No. 8 1:09-cv-0463 OWW SMS, 2011 WL 3740811 at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2011) (A 34-page 9 complaint with 34 pages of exhibits “that lists multiple unrelated incidents and contains legal 10 argument” violates Rule 8); Simmons v. Akanno, No. 1:09-cv-0659 GBC PC, 2010 WL 5186690 11 at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2010) (A 33-page complaint with 53 pages of exhibits violates Rule 8); 12 Knapp v. Cate, No. 1:08-cv-1779 SKO PC, 2010 WL 3521871 at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2010) (A 13 26-page complaint with 60 pages of exhibits violates Rule 8). 14 Plaintiff will be granted leave to file an amended complaint that complies with Rule 8(a). 15 Twenty-five pages is more than sufficient for plaintiff to identify his claims and set forth specific 16 facts in support of those claims. Accordingly, the amended complaint should not exceed twenty- 17 five pages in length, and it may be stricken from the record if it violates this page limitation. 18 19 II. Amending the Complaint Plaintiff is advised that in an amended complaint he must clearly identify each defendant 20 and the action that defendant took that violated his constitutional rights. The court is not required 21 to review exhibits to determine what plaintiff’s charging allegations are as to each named 22 defendant. All claims must be included in the body of the complaint. The charging allegations 23 must be set forth in the amended complaint, so defendants have fair notice of plaintiff’s claims. 24 That said, plaintiff need not provide every detailed fact in support of his claims. Rather, plaintiff 25 should provide a short, plain statement of each claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 26 Any amended complaint must show the federal court has jurisdiction, the action is brought 27 in the right place, and plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true. It must 28 contain a request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons who 4 1 personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional right. 2 Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation 3 of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act 4 he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). 5 In an amended complaint, the allegations must be set forth in numbered paragraphs. Fed. 6 R. Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. Fed. 7 R. Civ. P. 18(a). If plaintiff has more than one claim based upon separate transactions or 8 occurrences, the claims must be set forth in separate paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). 9 The federal rules contemplate brevity. See Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 10 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that “nearly all of the circuits have now disapproved any 11 heightened pleading standard in cases other than those governed by Rule 9(b)”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 84; cf. Rule 9(b) (setting forth rare exceptions to simplified pleading). Plaintiff’s claims must be 13 set forth in short and plain terms, simply, concisely and directly. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema 14 N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) (“Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system, 15 which was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 16 An amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 17 E.D. Cal. R. 220. Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, all prior pleadings are superseded. 18 By signing an amended complaint, plaintiff certifies he has made reasonable inquiry and 19 has evidentiary support for his allegations, and for violation of this rule the court may impose 20 sanctions sufficient to deter repetition by plaintiff or others. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. 21 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 22 After filing the complaint, plaintiff filed a motion requesting injunctive relief and 23 requesting the court grant the relief sought in the petition for writ of mandamus included in the 24 complaint. (ECF No. 7.) Based on review of plaintiff’s filings in this action, it appears that 25 plaintiff seeks release from prison and an order directing the California Supreme Court to 26 assemble en banc to resolve questions of law relevant to plaintiff’s ongoing state habeas 27 proceedings. (ECF Nos. 1, 4, 7.) 28 //// 5 1 I. 2 Legal Standards A. Injunctive Relief 3 A party requesting preliminary injunctive relief must show that “he is likely to succeed on 4 the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the 5 balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. 6 Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The propriety of a request for injunctive relief 7 hinges on a significant threat of irreparable injury that must be imminent in nature. Caribbean 8 Marine Serv. Co. v. Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988). 9 Alternatively, under the so-called sliding scale approach, as long as the plaintiff 10 demonstrates the requisite likelihood of irreparable harm and can show that an injunction is in the 11 public interest, a preliminary injunction may issue so long as serious questions going to the merits 12 of the case are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in plaintiff’s favor. Alliance for 13 the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (concluding that the 14 “serious questions” version of the sliding scale test for preliminary injunctions remains viable 15 after Winter). 16 The principle purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to preserve the court’s power to 17 render a meaningful decision after a trial on the merits. See 9 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. 18 Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2947 (3d ed. 2014). Implicit in this required showing is 19 that the relief awarded is only temporary and there will be a full hearing on the merits of the 20 claims raised in the injunction when the action is brought to trial. Preliminary injunctive relief is 21 not appropriate until the court finds that the plaintiff’s complaint presents cognizable claims. See 22 Zepeda v. United States Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court 23 may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter 24 jurisdiction over the claims . . . .”). 25 In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any preliminary 26 injunction must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court 27 finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm.” 28 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). Further, an injunction against individuals not parties to an action is 6 1 strongly disfavored. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110 2 (1969) (“It is elementary that one is not bound by a judgment . . . resulting from litigation in 3 which he is not designated as a party . . . .”).1 4 Further, preliminary injunctive relief is not appropriate until the court finds that the 5 plaintiff’s complaint presents cognizable claims. See Zepeda v. United States Immigration Serv., 6 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal 7 jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; [however] it may not 8 attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.”). 9 B. Writ of Mandamus “The writ of mandamus is a ‘drastic and extraordinary’ remedy ‘reserved for really 10 11 extraordinary causes.’” In re Van Dusen, 654 F.3d 838, 840 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Ex parte 12 Fahey, 332 U.S. 258, 259-60 (1947)). See Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 13 U.S. 271, 289 (1988) (“This Court repeatedly has observed that the writ of mandamus is an 14 extraordinary remedy, to be reserved for extraordinary situations.”). Moreover, “federal courts 15 are without power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state courts or their judicial officers in the 16 performance of their duties.” Clark v. Washington, 366 F.2d 678, 681 (9th Cir. 1966); see also 17 Demos v. U.S. Dist. Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting that federal courts 18 lack jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus to state courts and that such petitions “are frivolous 19 as a matter of law”). 20 II. 21 Plaintiff may not pursue release from prison in a § 1983 action. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 22 Analysis U.S. 475, 479 (1973) (“Release from penal custody is not an available remedy under the Civil 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 However, the fact that injunctive relief is sought from one not a party to litigation does not automatically preclude the court from acting. The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 16519(a) permits the court to issue writs “necessary or appropriate in aid of their jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” The All Writs Act is meant to aid the court in the exercise and preservation of its jurisdiction. Plum Creek Lumber Co. v. Hutton, 608 F.2d 1283, 1289 (9th Cir. 1979). The United States Supreme Court has authorized the use of the All Writs Act in appropriate circumstances against persons or entities not a party to the underlying litigation. United States v. New York Telephone Co., 434 U.S. 159, 174 (1977). 7 1 Rights Act”); Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874, 875 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Where a state prisoner 2 challenges the fact or duration of his confinement, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas 3 corpus.”). Additionally, preliminary injunctive relief is not appropriate because plaintiff has not 4 yet stated a cognizable claim. Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727. 5 Therefore, the court will recommend that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be denied. 6 Plaintiff’s request for a writ of mandamus must also be denied because this court does not have 7 the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to any state court. Demos, 925 F.2d at 1161-62. 8 9 CONCLUSION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. 11 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 12 is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 13 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order 14 to the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed 15 concurrently herewith. 16 3. Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with leave to amend. 17 4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 18 complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal 19 Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint 20 must bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “First 21 Amended Complaint.” 22 23 24 25 26 5. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief and petition for writ of mandamus (ECF No. 7) be denied. These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 27 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 28 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 8 1 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned 2 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 3 objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 4 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of 5 the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 Dated: July 24, 2019 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 DLB:12 18 DLB:1/Orders/Prisoner/Civil.Rights/hamp0851.scrn+pi 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9
]]>
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.
